Presumption of undue influence to be drawn.

T. P. Ahmed Hussain Sahib, a Muslim resident of Tirupattur North Arcot District, died on 24th July, 1952, leaving behind considerable properties and two widows, 7 sons and 3 daughters. Zuleika Bi was one of the two surviving widows She had 3 sons by Ahmed Hussain, the eldest of whom was T. P. Muhammad Yousuf Sahib. He was a lad about 18 years old at the time of his father’s death and his two younger brothers were still minors. There was a partition of the estate of the said Ahmed Hussain Sahib between his heirs in which all the heirs including Zuleika Bi and Muhammad Yousuf Sahib got their legitimate share of the properties as per Muslim Law. Zuleika Bi’s brother was one Abdul Jabbar Sahib, a merchant at Hindupur, having a residence at Tirupattur also. He evinced interest in the affairs of his sister and was instrumental in bringing about an amicable division of the assets of the deceased Ahmed Hussain between his heirs. Yousuf Sahib was living with his mother and he executed two documents in her favour, one called a gift deed and the other a deed of release by which he completely denuded himself of all the properties he got as a sharer in the estate of his deceased father. These documents are dated 12th July, 1953 and 13th July, 1953. Within a few months thereafter on 1st January, 1954, the mother Zuleika Bi, the donee from her son Yousuf Sahib purported to sell the properties which she got from her son to a stranger to the family, one Abdul Malik Sahib stated to be a shroff merchant at Tirupattur for an alleged consideration of Rs. 7,900. The properties consist of a building with a rice mill, machinery and plant, which was leased out by the late Ahmed Hussain himself during his lifetime to one Ramalingam Pillai for a monthly rental of Rs. 125.

Yousuf Sahib filed O.S. No. 32 of 1955 on the file of the Sub-Court at Vellore challenging the validity of the transactions entered into by him with his mother who in turn had purported to sell the properties she got to a stranger, and prayed, for rescission of the said transactions and for recovery of possession of the properties together with mesne profits claimed at Rs. 125, a month from 12th July, 1953 till delivery of possession. The first defendant in the suit was his mother Zuleika Bi the second defendant was the alienee from his mother and the third defendant was the lessee in possession of the properties.

The averments in the plaint constitutes a jumble of ill-assorted ideas and legal conceptions. It is stated therein that the plaintiff yielded to the insistence, pressure and importunities of his mother, and that he was impelled to act as he did by gratitude affection and respect for a parent. It is also said that the plaintiff was put in fear of bodily harm both by his mother and uncle (Abdul Jabbar). The plaint further averred that his mother was in a position to dominate his will and that he was not a willing or free agent in executing the impugned documents. It is clear, however, torn a reading of the plaint that the plaintiff’s main ground of attack on the transactions in favour of his mother was one based upon a plea of undue influence.

The case of the first defendant was that the plaintiff acted voluntarily in executing the documents in her favour, that he exercised a free and independent mind in regard to the transactions, and that the story of her having been in a position to dominate the will of her adult son, and of his having been put in fear of bodily harm was a mere myth.

The second defendant in the suit, the alienee from the mother while supporting, the case of the first defendant in respect of the transaction, of course, pleaded that he was a bona fide purchaser for value.

The learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore found that the impugned transactions were vitiated by undue influence and fraud, that the second defendant the alienee was not a bona fide purchaser for value and accordingly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. He also awarded mesne p