The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a high degree of evidence to prove undue influence, the need to resist interference with contracts based on judges' understanding of the parties' business capacity, and the importance of clear title and the order of establishing positions in cases of undue influence.

Mockett, J.

1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of South Kanara. The suit by the plaintiffs prayed for an order to set aside two documents executed by the first plaintiff, Exs. E and F, both of which were executed on the 9th of June, 1928. In their plaint, they alleged that the execution of these documents was obtained by coercion, undue influence and fraud on the part of the first defendant. The plea of coercion was abandoned. We are unable to find any finding with regard to fraud by the learned trial Judge and it would appear that the only ground on which he has decreed this suit is based on undue influence of the first defendant over the first plaintiff.

2. These persons are related. The first plaintiff married twice and defendants 1 and 2 are relations by his first wife. His second wife died in 1918. She had a daughter who died in May, 1928. It may be mentioned that all the children by the first marriage also died. So the immediate relatives of the first plaintiff, because he has no brothers and sisters living, are the relatives of his first wife and the relatives of his second wife. It is alleged in this case that this suit has been instigated by one Kumara Rai who is a relative of the first wife. There is a long history of documents in this case and it is necessary to deal with them because the unquestionably bear upon the facts. The first document brought to our notice was Ex. A, dated 18th September, 1918, described as a deed of settlement. That document was executed by the first plaintiff and his mother and maternal aunt. It is a curious document but the roost important part of it provides that the parties should be protected from the property being lost on account of their foolishness. It goes on to state that the parties thereto shall not alienate the property and they appoint one Manjappa as the manager. On the same day there was a deed of partition, Ex. V, entered into between these persons by which the suit properties were given to the first plaintiff and his mother and aunt. It is stated in evidence that on the 8th May, 1926, Manjappa leased a portion of the suit properties to the first defendant. On the 11th June, 1926, and 13th June, 1927, two promissory notes were executed, Exs. I and II respectively, by P.W. 1 to the first defendant and by P.W. 1 to the first defendants father-in-laws nephew. Money was advanced under these two promissory notes and it has so been found by the learned trial Judge. That is important because the first plaintiff denied consideration and alleged that these documents were not executed on the dates they purport to be executed but on the 9th June, 1928, the date of Exs. E and F, which are sought to be set aside in this suit. On the 15th June, 1927, by Ex. III, the first plaintiff wrote to the first defendant asking for Rs. 275 which money was paid. By Ex. IV dated 21st August, 1927, the first plaintiff again wrote to the first defendant asking for Rs. 150. On the 12th April, 1927, by Ex. B, a registered deed of settlement was executed by the first plaintiff in favour of his daughter. In that deed of settlement it is alleged that the deed of partition to which it refers was brought about fraudulently and the alienations made by Manjappa are stated to be void. Later in that document however the present plaintiff admits the deed of partition. On the 12th April, 1927, that is, the same day, there was a mortgage by Manjappa to the first plaintiff of some other properties and on the 30th May by Ex. D, the first plaintiff assigned the mortgage. These documents have been mentioned in some detail for this reason that the first plaintiff put himself forward and succeeded in impressing the learned Judge with the view that he was a simpleton unable to look after his affairs. The indications from these documents are entirely the other way. He seems to have been very competent in the management of his affairs; he executes documents, borrows money a