( 1 ) I have had the advantage of reading, in advance, the judgment, prepared by my learned brother. I fully agree with him in his conclusion that the appeal should fail and be dismissed and that there should be no order for costs, either here or in the Court below. Bijayesh Mukherji, J.

( 2 ) THE decision of this appeal by Pannalal Sen the unsuccessful plaintiff, in the Court of first instance, turns principally on the question whether the two documents listed below are vitiated by undue influence or not- (i) A registered deed of gift, as respects a pucca one-storied house with amongst others, land admeasuring 3 cottahs 13 Chhittacks and 32 square feet, being part of 66/3 Kaibartapara Lane, Salkia, within the jurisdiction of Malipanchghora Police Station in the Town of Howrah, executed on 7th February, 1951, by Muktalal Sen, since deceased, a brother of the appellant Pannalal, in favour of Ashalata Ghose, the first defendant, who is the wife of Manmatha Nath Ghose, the second defendant, a pleader practising in the Howrah Courts, (ii) A registered agreement or annuity bond executed on the same day (7th Feb. 1951), between the said Ashalata Ghose and Muktalal Sen, whereby the first party Ashalata binds herself, her heirs and legal representatives, amongst other things, to maintain and tend the second party Muktalal, as also to stand for the expenses of his pilgrimage to Puri, Navadwip and Brindaban, durante vita, that is, so long as he is alive in default, to pay him Rs. 40/- a month for maintenance, medical treatment, pilgrimage and the like. 2. The appellant Pannalal died during the carriage of this appeal and has since been substituted by his heirs.

( 3 ) THE facts set out in the plaint need not be referred to further than as follows: late Kanailal Sen bequeathed by will, the immoveable property he had, to his four sons -- Pannalal (the original appellant), Jaharlal, Muktalal, (a name which bulks so large in this litigation), and Bejoylal, The property in suit happens to be the most valuable part of Mukta-lal's share, rendered still more valuable by the addition he had made, with his own funds, of a room and a kitchen. "of less than average intelligence and almost uneducated", Muktalal "was by habit stingy. " He married when he was "past forty", but only to become a widower at 50 or thereabouts. "he cooked his own food. " And his was a "style of living" so poor, even though he, a money-lender at that, "earned considerable sums of money" as a draper, and "had a comfortable monthly income" too by letting out three out of the four rooms, in his house -- the house in controversy here. Such a one fell so easy a prey to the "deep-laid plan" of Manmatha, "a wily and veteran lawyer", aided and abetted by Ashalata, "his able wife". The plan worked itself by-and-by in the manner following- (i) An "outward show of sympathy for his hard lot", emanating from Manmatha and Ashalata, was followed by periodic invitations to dinner which was served by Ashalata herself. (ii) Manmatha used to tend his lawsuits and thereby won his confidence. (iii) More, Manmatha fostered in him "the idea that the rooms in his house could be let out at a much higher rent", once the three existing tenants were got rid of, nothing to say of construction of a first floor which would enhance the letting value of the property so much the more, in view of the prevailing house famine, and got indeed, three actions in ejectment, "full of false allegations", raised by him against the three tenants, with a view to getting rid of them. (iv) Again, it was constantly impressed upon Muktalal, a man of weak intellect, and befriended by none, that Ashalata was a mother unto him, so much so that he was even told: 'in some previous birth she must have been your natural mother. Such indeed is the dream she had dreamt" (v) The 'sop' of enabling him to acquire religious merit by providing for his visit to "famous places of pilgrimage" was thrown out too. Havin