Whether the sale deed executed by a person of his own rights can be set aside without any of the conventional vitiating circumstances being established and solely on the ground of what the court considers to be an unconscionable transaction?
Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in holding the deed to be unconscionable without any other evidence and solely because of the facts?
The three subordinate principles are closely interrelated and cannot be analyzed in complete isolation from each other.
First, the defendant must have been enriched by the receipt of a benefit.
Secondly, that benefit must have been gained at the plaintiff's expense.
Thirdly, it would be unjust to allow the defendant to retain that benefit.