S M ARUMUGHA CHETTY Vs. RANGANATHAM CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, his grandson, are the only coparceners in a Hindu joint family. The Plaintiff sues for a declaration that a written instrument, Ex. A, dated 25 January, 1930 and admittedly signed by him, is void, and for partition of the family property. His case in regard to Ex. A appears to be twofold, first, that he can claim a declaration that it is voidable on account of fraud and misrepresentation and secondly, that he can ignore it as void for want of consideration and for another reason, which I will mention shortly, and that it is therefore no bar to the partition which he claims. Wallace, J., who heard the suit, dismissed it; and against that decision the Plaintiff appeals.

(2.) The Plaintiff's story in his plaint is that after the death of his only son in August, 1929, he was not satisfied with the Behaviour of his grandson, the Defendant, a young man then of about 18 years, and that he therefore wished for a partition on the following lines: first, that provision should be made for four of the Plaintiff's daughters by settling on each of them a small house from the share that was to be allotted to the Plaintiff; secondly, that a house in Thambu Chetty Street and the family house in another street, worth together Rs. 40,000, should be allotted to the Plaintiff's share; thirdly, that the family business in brass utensils should be allotted to the Defendant; fourthly, that out of the Defendant's share two houses worth Rs. 8,000 should be given to the Defendant's mother; fifthly, that the jewels in the possession of the various members of the family should be kept by those in whose possession they were; and, sixthly, that the remaining property of the family should be kept undivided. The Plaintiff goes on in his plaint to allege that he instructed a clerk, Desikachari, who had long been employed in the family business, that that was what he wished to be done. Paragraph 7 of the plaint is as follows: The said Desikachariar said that the Defendant was agreeable to this course and thereupon the Plaintiff instructed Desikachariar to have a document prepared after consulting lawyers to carry out the proposals |et forth above. In or about the last week of January, 1930, on a Saturday rught after 10 P.M. the said Desikachariar came to the Plaintiff along with the Defendant and one Ramaswami Aiyar, represented that the document had been prepared in accordance with the express intentions of the Plaintiff and had been approved by a vakil and further informed the Plaintiff that it is better to execute the document at once. On the Plaintiff asking him to read the document the said Desikachariar assured the Plaintiff that the document contained the terms mentioned above in paragraph 6 supra. As the Plaintiff had implicit confidence in the said Desikachariar and believing in the truth and representations made by the said Desikachariar, in the presence of and to the hearing of the Defendant, he signed the document then and there and the Defendant also put his signature to the said document.

(3.) The plaint goes on to state: The said Desikachariar was instructed by the Plaintiff to keep the document with him.