PETHU REDDIAR Vs. RAJAMBU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE litigation from which this appeal arises was commenced on April 20, 1932, by one Somasundara Reddiar against some 18 defendants for the purpose of setting aside a power-of-attorney and 14 sale-deeds all of which had been executed by Somasundara, the plaintiff, in favour of one or other of the defendants. THE power-of-attorney was dated September 21, 1931. THE sale-deeds were executed on various dates ranging from November 16, 1931, to March 5, 1932. Somasundara sued as a person of unsound mind and a pauper, by his wife and next friend Rajambu Ammal, the present respondent, whom he had married in 1927 when he was about 17 years old. THE relief sought was that all the documents mentioned should be set aside and possession given of the properties the subject of the sale-deeds. In their substance the grounds of this claim were (1) that Somasundara was not of sound mind within the meaning of Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, at the dates of the transactions in question, and (2) that those transactions had all been induced by undue influence, as denned in Section 16 of the said Act, on the part of the defendants or some of them.

(2.) THE suit thus started ran an involved and tedious course the details of which need not now be recounted at length. THE following summary of the proceedings leading to the appeal to the Board will suffice for present purposes. In 1936 Somasundara died and his widow, the respondent, was substituted as plaintiff as her husband's legal representative. On February 25, 1941, the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly dismissed the suit save in respect of three of the said sale-deeds which he set aside, apparently on the ground of lack of consideration. He held that the pleas of unsoundness of mind and undue influence had not been established. In reaching this conclusion he disregarded the testimony of two doctors produced as witnesses in support of the claim (and who had not been examined before him) as being "perfectly worthless and completely biased. " THE defendants whose sale-deeds had been set aside did not appeal from this decision. But the plaintiff did, and her appeal was allowed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on April 28, 1944. THE Court (Krishnaswami Ayyangar and Somayya JJ.) held that Somasundara had not the requisite capacity to contract as laid down in Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act and that his " helpless state and weak mind were taken advantage of by unscrupulous persons," It decreed accordingly that the power-of-attorney and the 11 sale deeds which had been upheld by the Subordinate Judge be set aside, that the plaintiff be put into possession and that the question of mesne profits be determined under Order XX, Rule 12, of the Civil Procedure Code. On December 15,1944, the High Court granted leave to three of the defendants, the present appellants, to appeal to His Majesty in Council. THE position, as the matter now comes before their Lordships, therefore, is that all the 15 transactions impugned in this suit have been set aside and of these only fourthe sale-deeds in which the appellants were concerned as transfereesare the subject of the present appeal. Particulars of these four are as

(3.) AFTER a careful consideration of the evidence their Lordships are satisfied, beyond any question, that the view taken by the High Court was the right view and should be affirmed. They can see no reason to justify the strictures passed upon the medical testimony by the Subordinate Judge. The evidence of these witnesses seems to have been based on a conscientious examination of the patient. Their competence was not in any way challenged and there is nothing in the case to suggest that either had any interest in the suit or bias in favour of the plaintiff. The strange sequence of transactions which were the subject of the present and another contemporaneous suit and which left Somasundara stripped of his possessions, and thus qualified to sue as a pauper, offers strong corroboration of the medical testimony and of the substance of the story told by the plaintiff. In their Lordships' opinion the whole weight of the evidence supports the finding that Somasundara was of unsound mind throughout the relevant period.