(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondent for recovery of a half-share in certain property. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement, whereby, in consideration of the plaintiff standing all the expense of litigation, the defendant would bring a certain suit for obtaining the property in question, and, if ultimately successful, would give the plaintiff a half-share in that property.
(2.) The Munsif dismissed the suit on a finding that the plaintiff was in a position to dominate the will of the defendant and that the transaction was on the face of it unfair. He, accordingly, held that the contract was a voidable one as induced by undue influence. The District Judge, on first appeal, upheld this decision.
(3.) The first question is whether there was evidence to justify the finding that the plaintiff was in a position to dominate the will of the defendant. The Munsif based his finding on the fact that the defendant was only just over minority, was inexperienced, had no money himself to carry on the litigation and bad appealed in vain to at least one other person who had refused to help him. The District Judge supported this finding merely on the facts that the respondent was young and inexperienced, and did not, as a matter of fact, obtain independent advice. We are not disposed to hold that there was nothing in fact on which the finding could be based, though if we were trying the case originally we should not be disposed to agree with the finding. As to the finding that the transaction was an unfair one, the District Judge has based his finding on the fact that the defendant had so good a chance of obtaining the property that there was little risk in financing him and that the agreement to give half the property, that is a half-worth Rs. 600, for an expenditure which in fact only amounted to Rs. 200 was unfair. Here again we are not disposed to hold that there was no basis whatever for the finding.