AMBA ALIAS PADMAVATI Vs. SHRINIVASA KAMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is a minor, instituted the suit by her next friend, her father, to recover certain properties from the respondent-defendant, her husband. Her title is based on a deed of gift executed by Krishna Kampti, the adoptive father of the respondent, who died on the 17th April 1909. The defence on the merits, broadly speaking, was of two-fold character. Firstly, that the alleged deed of gift was executed under the undue influence of the appellant s father who procured it by means of mis-representation and fraud and secondly, that the contemplated gift was never completed according to law and was in fact revoked by Krishna Kampti before it could be completed.

(2.) Krishna Kampti, who was possessed of considerable properties, moveable and immoveable, was an inhabitant of a village called Karingan in the South Kanara District. He adopted the defendant when he was only 9 months old and until shortly before the date of the transaction in question, the defendant and his first wife lived in the same house with Krishna Kampti and his wife on the best of terms. The defendant, however, had no child though he was nearly 39 years old and his wife about 33. Krishna Kampti, who was 70 years old in 1908, being concerned that his son had no issue conceived the idea of marrying him to a second wife. The defendant was much attached to his first wife and did not want to marry again; but he was at last prevailed upon to marry the plaintiff who was at the time a girl of 11 years, she being the daughter of Krishna Kampti s wife s brother, one Ramayya Shanbhoga. The case of the defendant is that this Ramayya Shanbhogu had much influence over Krishna Kampti, that even before the marriage actually took place, he had formed designs with regard to Krishna Kampti s properties and that it was he who by means of misrepresentations and unfair devices succeeded within a few months of the marriage in alienating his father s affections from him and misleading his father to execute documents, the effect of which on his own and the family s interest he did not fully realize. The plaintiff s marriage with the defendant was brought about on the 9th March 1908, and according to custom, she came and lived in the house of the husband for a few days. Then she went back to her father s house; 10 or 15 days afterwards, the defendant was asked to go and fetch her. The case of the plaintiff is that instigated by his first wife, he refused to do so and thereupon the old man Krishna Kampti was very angry and in order to coerce the defendant to submission or to punish him and to make provision for the plaintiff, decided upon making a gift of his share of the immoveable properties to her. He consulted his lawyers (the 2nd and 3rd witnesses for the plaintiff), and upon their advice had a deed of partition drawn up and also a deed of gift of the immoveable properties which fell to his share. The defendant s version of what occurred was that it was the plaintiff s father who persistently maligned him to the old man and by means of various false representations and insinuations worked upon the mind of Krishna Kampti to such an extent that he did not in fact know what he was about. The defendant says that he did not refuse to bring the plaintiff back to his house when asked by his father, but only delayed doing so as his first wife s father was seriously ill and he wanted to see him, that in fact it is not the custom for immature girls of the plaintiff s age to live in the husband s house but that, among Hindus of his caste, girls before the attainment of puberty live mostly in their father s house. He says that there was nothing unreasonable in what he did and his conduct could not give offence to any reasonable man. It may be that Krishna Kampti, in compelling the defendant to marry a second wife in the lifetime of his first wife to whom he was evidently much attached and afterwards taking offence at the hesitation or delay displayed by the defendant in bringing the plaintiff back from her house when asked to do so, was acting arbitrarily and harshly. But if the alleged gift to the plaintiff was a true, well-understood and voluntary act of Krishna Kampti s mind, no legal objection can be taken to it merely on the ground that it was such as would not be expected from a man of ordinary prudence. An owner of property is entitled to dispose of it as he pleases and the validity of his disposition does not depend upon whether it is prejudicial to himself or to his relatives and heirs.

(3.) The point for consideration is whether the defendant has proved that in making the alienation in question, Krishna Kampti s mind was unduly influenced and dominated by the plaintiff s father. This is not a matter always capable of direct proof and must depend by its very nature on the conclusion to be drawn from the entire circumstances in which the transaction had its origin. The motive of the gift, its nature, its effect on the donor and his family, the state of the mind of the donor, whether he acted upon any misrepresentations or misconceptions, the benefit which the person who is alleged to have dominated the will of the donor derives by the act, how the donor regarded the act when removed from the influence of the person for whose benefit the gift was made, what independent and competent advice he had and whether the persons advising him knew of the influence he was acting under, these are some of the circumstances which have to be borne in mind in ascertaining whether the transaction is vitiated on the ground of undue influence. Krishna Kampti, as I have said, was entirely happy in his family relations until the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant. The defendant charges the plaintiff s father with having broached the idea of this marriage and on the evidence, I am inclined to the opinion that the plaintiff s father was mainly instrumental in bringing it about. He professes in his evidence that in fact he was reluctant to give his daughter to the defendant but gave in under the pressure of Krishna Kampti. He, however, knew or must have known that the defendant was much attached to his wife and was unwilling to marry a second time. Under these circumstances when the plaintiff s father showed readiness to give the plaintiff, a very young girl, in marriage to the defendant, it seems to me that his act must have been influenced by some strong motive, and the more so if, as I think, he actively suggested the idea to Krishna Kampti. Krishna Kampti was, generally speaking, an intelligent; man, and managed his properties himself, which apparently he substantially improved, and also the household affairs. He was much respected in the neighbourhood by reason of his position and wealth.