Exceptions in burden of proof during undue influence

Subjective satisfaction by extraneous consideration at times tilt the decisions

In cases of undue influence the burden of proof sways towards the direction of the person who is in the position to exercise dominance over the other .

Undue influence occurs when an individual is able to persuade another's decisions due to the relationship between the two parties. Often, one of the parties is in a position of power over the other due to elevated status, higher education, or emotional ties. The more powerful individual uses this advantage to coerce the other individual into making decisions that might not be in their long-term best interest.

Hence the burden of proof here lies on the person who can influence the other due to the certain factors mentioned above.

caselaw:

Mahboob Khan And Ors. vs Hakim Abdul Rahim on 30 March, 1964

“The burden of proving that the contract was not induced by undue influence is to He upon the person who was in a position to dominate the will of the other. ... Once that fact is established, then the unconscionable nature of the bargain and the burden of proof on the issue of undue influence come into operation."

What are the facts? What is the context?