Home News Judgements Subhash Chandra Das Mushib V Ganga Prosad Das Mushib Case Summary

Subhash Chandra Das Mushib V Ganga Prosad Das Mushib Case Summary

Subhash Chandra Das Mushib V Ganga Prosad Das Mushib and Ors. AIR 1967 SC 878

The Law Express App
The Law Express Mobile App


  • Plaintiff’s father, Prasanna Kumar, owned certain lands in two villages i.e. Parbatipur and Lokepur. He had two sons, namely Ganga Prosad (plaintiff), Balaram (second defendant), and a daughter called Swarna Latha (third defendant) and an only grandson Subhash Chandra (first defendant). The plaintiff had no son. The whole family lived in Bankura. Ganga Prosad, for many years before 1944, had been making a living elsewhere. It appears that Balaram always lived with his father and was never employed anywhere else.
  • The plaintiff presented evidence to show that he handled his father’s property while he lived in Bankura. The Lokepur properties were purchased by Prasanna benami in the name of Swarnalata. And those properties were to put to auction in implementation of a decree for arrears of rent later. The property was transferred to Subhash as a deed of gift in 1944 when the plaintiff claimed he was not in Bankura. There is no direct evidence of whether the plaintiff was present at the time when this deed was registered. In 1947, Prasanna was sued for recovery of arrears of taxes, and in his written statement that, he mentioned having no interest in the property
  • There is considerable evidence that in between 1944-48 there were a number of settlements of various plots in Lokepur village carried out by Balaram as he was Subhash’s guardian. And in each settlement, a nirupan Patra (deed of settlement) had been recited in which Prasanna had signed as an attesting witness. These settlements were made in conjunction with other co-sharers of Prasanna.
  • The plaintiff claimed that he was not aware of settlements of land in Lokepur after 1944. He also admitted to have never paid any rent to the superior landlords and affirmed that he learned about the deed of settlement more-or-less two years before the institution of the suit. Prasanna died in 1948 and the suit was filed in 1952. The plaintiff claimed that the Balaram used undue influence to transfer the property and asked for a cancellation of the transaction.

The Law Express App

The Law Express App


The issue here is:

  • Whether Balaram was in a position to dominate the will of their father and did he use that position to obtain an unfair advantage?
  • Whether the transaction was an unconscionable one?

Looking For Previous Year Question Papers of Various Subjects – Download The Law Express App


  • The application of section 16(1), (2), and (3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – undue influence.
  • The application of section 122 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – defines a gift.


  • The Court did not come to a finding that Balaram was in a position to dominate the will of his father.
  • The Court did not find the transaction an unconscionable one.

Looking For Case Summaries of Various Subjects – Download The Law Express App


  • 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.
  • There was virtually no evidence regarding the domination of Balaram over the will of his father at the time of execution of the deed of gift or even thereafter. Prasanna also actively took interest in the management of the property shortly before his death. Therefore, there was no undue influence in this case of a gift to grandson from his grandfather.
  • It must also be noted that just because the parties were related to each other no presumption of undue influence can arise.
  • The situation that a grandfather gifted his property to his only grandson a few years before his death is not an unconscionable transaction prima facie (means on the face of it).

Looking For Notes of Various Subjects like Torts, Contract, CrPC, IPC, etc – Download The Law Express App 

Current Day Significance

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana relied on this judgment in the case of Hamelo (deceased) by L.R v/s Jang Sher Singh in 2001 and concluded that “Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove that the facts are different from that indicated in the lease deed. So, far as the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is concerned, because the parties are related to each other or merely because the plaintiff was old or of weak character, no presumption of undue influence can arise”.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh referred to the above-discussed judgment in the case of Mohinder Kumar vs Surinder Kumar Sood in 2017 to determine whether the transaction took place because of undue influence and whether the transaction was unconscionable.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Legal Aid and Its Implications on Poor People

INTRODUCTION While some lawyers believe the new Legal Aid Scheme is the first step towards a National Legal Service, others agree with some laypeople who...

The Law Express x Enhelion National Article Writing Competition

The Law Express is a platform that provides apropos insights on the current legal happenings around the world. We offer explicit legal news, judgments,...

Federalism in India

Introduction Federalism derives from the Latin term "foedus," which meaning "covenant, agreement, or treaty." Federalism is a principle that outlines a governance system in which...

Envisaging a Better Sanitation Policy in India – Sanitation Policy Analysis

INTRODUCTION India's high emphasis on hygiene has led to greater toilets availability as well as waste network: between 2014 and 2019, the “Swachh Bharat Mission”...

Recent Comments

Looking For Internship Updates, Case Briefs, Subject Notes & Job Openings?