Judgement

Consolidated Appeals (No.18 of 1946) from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court (August 17, 1939) modifying in the main case, a judgment and decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad and confirming, in the other case, a judgment and decree of that judge, all dated February 24, 1934.

Bai Hira, the plaintiff in the main case (respondent in the first two appeals and appellant in the cross-appeal), sued the defendant (the appellant in the first two appeals and respondent in the cross-appeal) for a declaration, in effect, that a document dated June 12, 1926, had been obtained from her by the defendant by the exercise of undue influence and that it was not binding on her, and for consequential reliefs.

Both courts below held that undue influence had been established but the trial court, whilst granting the declaration sought for and certain other consequential declarations, held in effect that any claim by the plaintiff to recover property from the defendant was barred by limitation. The High Court (Wadia and Indarnaryan JJ.) on the other hand, held that no part of the claim was barred, and the main question in these appeals was whether the plaintiffs clai