Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines `burden of proof' which clearly lays down that whosoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or law dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Thus, the Evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of proving fact always lies upon the person who asserts. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of the other party.Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr. (AIR 2011 SC 2344).
when a person after attaining majority, questions any sale of his property by his guardian during his minority, the burden lies on the person who upholds/asserts the purchase not only to show that the guardian had the power to sell but further that the whole transaction was bona fide. This was held in the case of Roop Narain vs. Gangadhar, 9 WR 297, as also in Anna Malay vs. Na U Ma, 17C 990. Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr. (AIR 2011 SC 2344).
that in a suit for partition, it is expected of the plaintiff to include only those properties for partition to which the family has clear title and unambiguously belong to the members of the joint family which is sought to be partitioned and if someone else's property meaning thereby disputed property is included in the schedule of the suit for partition, and the same is contested by a third party who is allowed to be impleaded by order of the trial court, obviously it is the plaintiff who will have to first of all discharge the burden of proof for establishing that the disputed property belongs to the joint family which should be partitioned excluding someone who claims that some portion of the joint family property did not belong to the plaintiff's joint family in regard to which decree for partition is sought. Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr. (AIR 2011 SC 2344).
In Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal & Anr, AIR 2008 SC 1541, hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the execution of an unregistered document put forth by the plaintiff was denied by the defendants, the ruling that it was for the defendants to establish that the document was forged or concocted is not a sound proposition. The first appellate Court proceeded on the basis that it is for the party who asserts something to prove that thing; and as the defendants alleged that the agreement was forged, it was for them to prove it. But the first appellate Court lost sight of the fact that the party who propounds the document will have to prove it. It was the plaintiff who had come to Court alleging that the first defendant had executed an agreement of sale in his favour. The defendant having denied it, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had executed the agreement and not on the defendant to prove the negative.
. In K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 951, honorable Supreme Court held "that when there are suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of the Will, the onus is also on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court and only when such responsibility is discharged, the Court would accept the Will as genuine. Even where there are no such pleas, but circumstances give rise to doubt, it is on the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. Suspicious circumstances arise due to several reasons such as with regard to genuineness of the signature of the testator, the conditions of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair or there might be other indications in the Will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case, the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last Will of the testator."
Section 16 of the Contract Act provides that a contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other, and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.
In Ladli Prashad Jaiswal v. The Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., Karnal & Ors, AIR 1963 SC 1279, honorable Supreme Court held:
“The doctrine of ‘undue influence’ under the common law was evolved by the Courts in England for granting protection against transactions procured by the exercise of insidious forms of influence spiritual and temporal. The doctrine applies to acts of bounty as well as to other transactions in which one party by exercising his position of dominance obtains an unfair advantage over another. The Indian enactment is founded substantially on the rules of English common law. The first sub-section of S.16 lays down the principle in general terms. By sub-section (2) a presumption arises that a person shall be deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another if the conditions set out therein are fulfilled. Sub-section (3) lays down the conditions for raising a rebuttable presumption that a transaction is procured by the exercise of undue influence. The reason for the rule in the third sub-section is that a person who has obtained an advantage over another by dominating his will may also remain in a position to suppress the requisite evidence in support of the plea of undue influence.”
In Subhash Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Das Mushib & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 878, hon'ble Supreme Court held "that the Court trying the case of undue influence must consider two things to start with, namely, (1) are the relations between the donor and the donee, such that the donee is in a position to dominate the Will of the donor, and (2) has the donee used that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the donor? Upon the determination of these two issues a third point emerges, which is that of the onus probandi. If the transaction appears to be unconscionable, then the burden of proving that the contract was not induced by undue influence lies upon the person who is in a position to dominate the Will of the other. It was further said that merely because the parties were nearly related to each other or merely because the donor was old or of weak character, no presumption of undue influence can arise. Generally speaking the relations of solicitor and client, trustee and cestui que trust, spiritual adviser and devotee, medical attendant and patient, parent and child are those in which such a presumption arises."
In Afsar Shaikh & Anr v. Soleman Bibi & Ors, AIR 1976 SC 163, honorable Supreme Court held:
“The law as to undue influence in the case of a gift inter vivos is the same as in the case of a contract. Sub-section (3) of Section 16 contains a rule of evidence. According to this rule, if a person seeking to avoid a transaction on the ground of undue influence proves-
(a) that the party who had obtained the benefit was, at the material time, in a position to dominate the will of the other conferring the benefit, and
(b) that the transaction is unconscionable,
the burden shifts on the party benefiting by the transaction to show that it was not induced by undue influence. If either of these two conditions is not established the burden will not shift. As shall be discussed presently, in the instant case the first condition had not been established; and consequently, the burden never shifted on the defendant. The Privy Council in Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad, (AIR 1924 PC 60) expounded three stages for consideration of a case of undue influence. It was pointed out that the first thing to be considered is, whether the plaintiff or the party seeking relief on the ground of undue influence has proved that the relations between the parties to each other are such that one is in a position to dominate the will of the other. Upto this point, 'influence' alone has been made out. Once that position is substantiated, the second stage has been reached - namely, the issue whether the transaction has been induced by undue influence. That is to say, it is not sufficient for the person seeking the relief to show that the relations of the parties have been such that the one naturally relied upon the other for advice, and the other was in a position to dominate the will of the first in giving it. Upon a determination of the issue at the second stage, a third point emerges, which is of the onus probandi. If the transaction appears to be unconscionable, then the burden of proving that it was not induced by undue influence is to lie upon the person who was in a position to dominate the will of the other. Error is almost sure to arise if the order of these propositions be changed. The unconscionableness of the bargain is not the first thing to be considered. The first thing to be considered is the relation of the parties. Were they such as to put one in a position to dominate the will of the other."
lACK OF DETAILS IN THE PLEADING:
13. If there are facts on the record to justify the inference of undue influence, the omission to make an allegation of undue influence specifically, is not fatal to the plaintiff being entitled to relief on that ground; all that the Court has to see is that there is no surprise to the defendant. In Hari Singh v. Kanhaiya Lal, AIR 1999 SC 3325, it was held that mere lack of details in the pleadings cannot be a ground to reject a case for the reason that it can be supplemented through evidence by the parties.
Joseph Johan Peter Sandy vs Veronica Thomas Rajkumar & Anr. 2013 (1) UAD 746 SC