#Undue Influence

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that dominant parties in fiduciary relationships bear the burden of proving fairness in property transactions, especially when fraud or undue influence is alleged. The court upheld the cancellation of sale deeds obtained through coercion, reinforcing protections for illiterate and dependent individuals under property law.

The Calcutta High Court held that while probate courts must verify a will’s due execution and the testator’s mental capacity under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, they lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the factual accuracy of statements within the will. This clarifies the narrow scope of probate proceedings, shielding executors from having to defend the veracity of personal allegations in a will - a critical boundary for estate litigants.

The Calcutta High Court enforced a 1987 property sale agreement despite non-registration and the vendor’s foreign status, ruling that specific performance is viable when parties act in reliance and no timely plea of avoidance is raised. Financial readiness is inferred from conduct, not cash deposits, reshaping how courts assess readiness under the Specific Relief Act.

Madras High Court reaffirms that a registered sale deed under Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act carries a statutory presumption of validity, requiring cogent evidence to displace it. Mere allegations of fraud, undue influence, or non-payment of consideration are insufficient unless substantiated with proof, reinforcing the sanctity of registered property transactions.

Calcutta High Court upheld a Will granting two floors to children from the first marriage and one floor with alienation rights to the second wife, ruling that admitted intimate relationships and equitable distribution rebut presumptions of undue influence or suspicious circumstances under succession law.

Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that in transactions involving illiterate pardanashin women, the burden shifts to the beneficiary to prove informed consent, invalidating a Power of Attorney obtained by fraud.

Karnataka High Court holds that false declaration in Form 26 affidavit regarding assets, property tax dues, and business income constitutes corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of RP Act, 1951.