The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof in cases of alleged undue influence and the importance of considering the circumstances of the transactions to determine unconscionability.

Lord Atkinson:-

This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Chief Court of the Punjab, dated the 13th January, 1914, varying a decree of the District Judge of Amritsar, dated the 31st July, 1911, and decreeing in part the claim of the present appellants.

The plaintiff Balla Mal is the father of the plaintiff Ibhar Das. They carry on the business of sellers of gold lace in the city of Amritsar and are in addition money-lenders. They are members of a joint Hindu family.

The deceased defendant was a Mahomedan. He was born in the year 1863, and was therefore in the year 1892, 29 years of age. At the latter date he had been employed for six years as permanent copying clerk in the Office of the Divisional Judge of Amritsar at a salary of Rupees 40 per mensem. The defendant"s father was head man of the Kunjar or prostitute caste.

The action out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs upon certain promissory notes admittedly drawn up and executed by the deceased defendant to recover the sum of Rs. 61,800 alleged to be due for principal, and Rs. 40,489-3-0 alleged to be due for interest at the rate of Rs. 30 per cent per annum, according to the tenor of these notes. The plaint, which was filed on the 25th April, 1909, set forth the particulars of the several notes sued upon, which it is not disputed were respectively presented to the deceased defendant at maturity and payment demanded without effect.

The deceased defendant on the 15th May, 1909, filed a written statement admitting the execution of the several promissory notes sued upon, but alleging:

1. That he did not receive any consideration for the making of them;

2. That the notes sued upon and all promissory notes and acknowledgment made or given by him leading up to the making of the former were procured from him by the exercise by the plaintiffs of undue influence upon him; and

3. That the whole transaction of which the promissory notes sued upon were the outcome was an unconscionable bargain made with him as an expectant heir, and therefore liable to cancellation.

It has been decided by this Board in two cases, namely, Dhanipal Das v. Rani Maneshar Baksh Singh [1906] 28 All. 570 = 33 I. A. 118 = 3 A.L.J 495 = 8 Bom. L. R. 491 = 10 C. W. N. 849 = 4 C. L. J. 1 = 16 M. L. J. 292 = 9 O. C. 188 (P. C.) and Rani Sundar Koer v. Ram Sham Kishen [1906] 34 Cal. 150 = 34 I. A. 9 = 4 A. L J 109 = 9 Bom L. R. 304 = 11 C.W.N.349 = 5 C.L.J. 106-17 M.L. J. 43 (P. C.), that questions such as those raised by this written statement must be decided on the provisions of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, as amended by the Indian Contract Amendment Act of 1899, and on those alone. The principles upon which English Courts of Equity deal with similar questions are therefore entirely inapplicable.

The 16th section of the Contract Act of 1872, as amended by the later Act, runs as follows:-

"1. 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.

"2. In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle a person is deemed to be in a position to domniate the will of another-

"(a) Where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or

"(b) When he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness or mental or bodily distress.

"3. Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another enters into a contract with him and the transaction appears on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other."

Four illustrations are given. These are to be taken as part of the stat