JUDGMENT

1. On 4th May 1929, the plaintiff-appellant Khalilur Rahman, alias, Abdus Subhan, alias, Sabhu, executed a deed of mortgage (Ex. B-l) in favour of Ghayasuddin Ashraf, respondent 2 and Abu Said, respondent 3, for a sum of Rs. 11,500. The consideration for the mortgage consisted of the following items:

(1) Set-off against promissory note dated 9th February 1929, in favour of respondent 2, Rs. 2,000. (2) Set-off against promissory note dated 18th February 1929, in favour of respondent 2, Rs. 1,000. (3) Set-off against promissory note dated 28th February 1929 in favour of respondent 2, Rs. 1,000. (4) Set-off against promissory note dated 5th March 1929, in favour of respondent 2, Rs. 1,000. (5) Set-off against promissory note dated 20th March 1929 in favour of respondent 2, Rs. 500. (6) Set-off against promissory note dated 3rd April 1929, in favour of respondent 2, Rs. 650. (7) Set-off against promissory note dated 11th April 1929, in favour of respondent 2, Rs. 600. (8) Set-off against promissory note dated 4th March 1929, in favour of respondent 3, Rs. 2,350. (9) Set-off against promissory note dated 19th March 1929, in favour of respondent 3, Rs. 1,000. (10) Set-off against promissory note dated 31st March 1929, in favour of respondent 3, Rs. 500. (11) Set-off against promissory note dated 3rd April 1929, in favour of respondent 3, Rs. 350. (12) Paid to the executant in cash before the sub-registrar Rs. 600.

2. The manner in which respondents 2 and 3 are related to the plaintiff-appellant will appear from the following pedigree:

TABLE

3. The plaintiff says that he was born on 24th May 1911 so that he was a minor on the date on which he executed the mortgage deed (Ex. B-l) in favour of respondents 2 and 3. It may be mentioned that before the execution of the mortgage deed in question, the plaintiff had executed a deed of wakf alalaulad (Ex. B.22) on 2nd April 1929, in respect of the Bara Banki properties and that two days after the execution of the mortgage deed in question he executed another deed of wakf (Ex. B-21) in respect of the Sitapur properties. The plaintiff's case is that advantage was taken of his youth and inexperience by Ghyasuddin, respondent 2, and Muhammad Ali Khan (shown in the pedigree) who prevailed upon him to take into his service one Qayamuddin as his mukhtar and that these three persons formed a clique for the purpose of leading him into evil ways. His mother, alarmed at the extravagant life that he was leading applied to the Deputy Commissioner for the family property being taken under the management of the Court of Wards. This naturally was not liked by the plaintiff and he threatened to commit suicide if his mother got the property taken over by the Court of Wards. His mother therefore withdrew her application but persuaded the plaintiff to execute the first deed of wakf referred to. When his mother came to know that the deed of wakf did not embrace all the family property, she asked the plaintiff and prevailed upon him to execute the second deed of wakf in respect of the remaining property. The plaintiff says that the promissory notes against which the consideration for the mortgage in question was set off, were executed by him fictitiously and without consideration at the instance of respondent 2 and Muhammad Ali Khan who made him believe that the wakf would be frustrated by his executing those promissory notes and others in favour of some of their friends. He stated that all the promissory notes and the deed of mortgage in question were executed by him owing to the fraud and undue influence of the respondents while he was a minor and that therefore the mortgage is not binding on him. On these allegations the plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the mortgage deed referred to above is void and invalid and not binding on him. It may be noted that one of the defendants to the suit was Nusrat Ali, respondent 1, in whose favour the plaintiff had executed a promissory note for Rs. 4,000 and Nusr