Q.Mrs. Sen, an elderly widow, is wholly dependent on her nephew, who manages all her financial affairs and banking. He persuades her to transfer her only house to him for a price far below its market value. Can Mrs. Sen have this transaction set aside, and if so, on what ground?

This is a classic undue-influence fact pattern: a dominant fiduciary position combined with an unconscionable bargain.

The nephew's control over her finances places him in a position to dominate her will, and the unconscionably low price suggests he used that position unfairly.

Step 1 — Identify the relevant vitiating factor. The facts show the nephew manages ALL of Mrs. Sen's financial affairs, and she is wholly dependent on him — this is exactly the kind of relationship Section 16 describes as one party being 'in a position to dominate the will of the other,' arising here from a real, ongoing position of authority/trust over her affairs.

Step 2 — Was that position used to obtain an unfair advantage? Section 16 requires the dominant party to have USED that position to secure an unfair advantage. The fact that the house — Mrs. Sen's only property — was transferred for a price 'far below market value' is strong evidence of an unconscionable bargain.

Step 3 — Burden of proof. Where a transaction between parties in such a relationship appears, on its face, unconscionable, the burden shifts onto the party in the dominant position (the nephew) to prove that the transaction was entered into with Mrs. Sen's free consent and was fair. On these facts, the nephew would have to justify why the price was so far below market value.

Step 4 — Remedy. Under Section 19A, a contract induced by undue influence is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused; Mrs. Sen may have the transfer set aside, or the court may direct the contract to be performed on such terms as it thinks fit.