JUDGMENT

Harries, J. - This is a defendant's second appeal against a decree of the lower appellate Court reversing a decree of the Court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff Sri Ram sued for possession of certain property and also for damages for the wrongful cutting and removal of certain trees in a grove which form part of the property in dispute. The learned Munsif who tried the case came to the conclusion that the sale deed upon which the plaintiff relied to establish his title was a fictitious document and that it gave the plaintiff no right of ownership or possession and that such rights still remained in the vendor who was the husband of the defendant, Mt. Manbhari, the present appellant in the suit. The lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the learned Munsif and held that the plaintiff Sri Ram was the owner of the property and that he was entitled to possession and damages in respect of the trees which had been cut. He however pointed out in his judgment that Sri Ram had obtained the property in question at a ridiculously low figure and that only a small part of that purchase price had actually been paid. He further pointed out that

very likely Sri Ram took advantage of the immature young age of Bauli Chand (the vendor) who used to smoke hemp with him, but there is no evidence of any fraud or undue influence; and mere inadequacy of consideration will be no ground for holding that the sale deed is fictitious.

2. Whilst he held that the property had passed by means of this sale deed to Sri Earn, and that consequently the latter was entitled to possession and damages, he further held that it was only equitable that Sri Ram should pay the balance of the purchase price, less damages, and he made such payment a condition precedent to Sri Ram obtaining actual possession. In short the learned Judge found that this was a most discreditable transaction on the part of Sri Earn, but he seems to have been afraid to declare the transaction voidable at the option of the vendor or his representative.

3. In my view the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be sustained. He has found as a fact that Sri Ram's vendor Bauli Chand had only just attained his majority when he executed the sale deed in question. He has further found that Bauli Chand regarded Sri Ram as his 'guru' and that this young man was accustomed to smoke hemp with his so called 'guru.' There were further findings that the property was worth at a very moderate estimate not less than Rs. 1,380 yet the sale deed was executed for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 400. Again the learned Judge having considered the evidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove the passing of the consideration came to the conclusion that payment of Rs. 70 only had been established. In short the facts found are these: that the vendor was a very young man who was addicted to smoking hemp. This young man sold property worth at least Rs. 1,380 to Sri Ram whom he regarded as his 'guru.' All that he was promised for the property was Rs. 400 and at most he never received more than Rs. 70. The only evidence that Rs. 70 was paid is the fact that it is stated that such a sum was paid before the Sub-Registrar, but such is not very satisfactory evidence because money paid before the Sub-Registrar can very easily be repaid the moment the parties left that officer.

4. Upon these facts the learned Subordinate Judge says that there was no evidence at all of fraud or undue influence, but in the same breath says that very likely Sri Ram took advantage of the immature youth of the vendor. In my judgment the relationship of the parties in this case was precisely what is contemplated in Section 16, Contract Act. Sri Ram was in a position to dominate the will of Bauli Chand and to use his position to obtain an unfair advantage over the latter. As the learned Judge has found Sri Ram was in the position of a 'guru' to this immature young man and further this immature young