(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 be upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other.Nothing in the sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).Illustrations(a)A having advanced money to his son, B, during his minority, upon B's coming of age obtains, by misuse of parental influence, a bond from for a greater amount than the sum due in respect of the advance. A employs undue influence.(b)A, a man enfeebled by disease or age, is induced, by B's influence over him as his medical attendant, to agree to pay an unreasonable sum for his professional services, B employes undue influence.(c)A, being in debt to the money-lender of his village, contracts a fresh loan on terms which appear to be unconscionable. It lies on to prove that the contract was not induced by undue influence.(d)A applies to a banker for a loan at a time when there is stringency in the money market. The banker declines to make the loan except at an unusually high rate of interest. A accepts the loan on these terms. This is a transaction in the ordinary course of business, and the contract is not induced by undue influence.
