Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anubhav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. for M/S. Manoj Swarup & Co., AOR

Key Points:- The judgment discusses that mere old age or infirmity without evidence of mental incapacity does not prove undue influence (paras in p_9, p_10, p_11). (!) (!) (!) - It states that undue influence requires pleading with full particulars and cannot be inferred from relations alone; burden shifts under specific sections after prima facie case (paras in p_12, p_11, p_13, p_19). (!) (!) (!) (!) - The registered sale-deed carries a presumption of correctness, which the plaintiff must rebut (p_10). (!) - The onus to prove good faith in transactions where one party stands in a position of active confidence lies on the party in that position (p_22). (!) - The conclusion that there is no sufficient evidence of undue influence and that courts should not interfere with concurrent findings (p_17, p_17). (!) - The law emphasizes that there can be no application of law sans facts; proper pleadings supported by evidence are required (paras in p_1, p_6). (!) (!) - The decision notes that mere care or protection in family relations does not automatically establish undue influence (p_11). (!)

What is the proof required to establish undue influence under contract law in the context of an aged/debilitated individual?What are the evidentiary and pleading requirements to prove undue influence and to rebut the presumption of validity of a registered sale-deed?What is the effect of a registered sale-deed and the burden of proof in cases involving alleged undue influence and the capacity of the executant?