Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Mr. T.R. Ramachandra Iyer very strenuously contended, that all we have to look to, is the value of the two plots on the date of Exhibit A in order to decide whether the transaction was a fair one or an unfair one. If the two plots were in the same locality and the environments were the same, his argument might be considered tenable. But when it is shown that one plot was more than 20 times the size of the other, and when it is remembered, that in a growing town of commercial importance open land inside the town may sooner 01 later become valuable as house-sites, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that the first defendant induced the plaintiff's mother and her advisers to take the small plot near the public buildings and got for himself a large plot likely to rise in value in a short time. In this connection, we have to see whether the plaintiff's mother had not only really disinterested, but sound advice. The defendants' 1st witness Mr. Viswasa Nadar is a respectable Second Grade Pleader, who is also the Government Pleader of Sattur. But a reading of his evidence shows that either he was careless of the interests of his friend's son or paid no attention to the contents of the document to which he put his signature as attesting witness. He does not seem to have made any enquiry as regards the extent of the plaint land or its value on the date of Exhibit A. He made no enquiries as to the value of the plot opposite the Court-house or the superstructure thereon, and his statement that some pariahs offered Rs. 3 to 5 per huh for a portion of the plot for a pathway without taking the trouble to find out how much he could realise by such sale is not of much value. As a Pleader he ought to have known that a minor's property could not be parted with unless some advantage was likely to accrue to him by such transaction; and his utter indifference as to what really happened to the minor's property shows that, however honest his intention might have been, his conduct was wholly against the interests of the minor. He, as a Vakil, ought to have advised the mother not to part with an extensive property which was likely to become valuable. He, as a local resident, must have known the state of things not far from his own house. That houses were beginning to spring up from 1897 about the plaint land, he must have been aware of, as it lay near the road going to the Railway Station. That the plaint site was attracting the attention of would-be buyers must have been known to him, and his not advising the plaintiff's mother not to part with the whole of the plaint site, I can only attribute it to sheer in difference and carelessness. He could very well have advised the mother to take a half share of the plaint property as well as a half share of the property opposite to the Court-house. Defendants' 2nd witness is an old retired First Grade Pleader of Sattur. His evidence that Chellaperumal Plllai was anxious to build an office or bungalow opposite to the District Munsif's Court-house cannot have any influence in deciding whether the transaction evidenced by Exhibit A was beneficial to the minor or not, because that wish had ceased with his death and no body in his senses could have imagined that the plaintiff, a young boy of seven years of age, was going to become a Vakil and was going to build an office opposite the Court-house. There is some inconsistency in the evidence of defendants' witness No. 1 when he says that the District Judge of Tinnevelly, Mr. Phillips, inspected the site for a Court-house in 1897. It is well-known that Mr. Phillips, now Phillips J., was District Judge of Tinnevelly from 1903 to 1906 and from the records called for from the office, it is found that the Government placed funds at the disposal of the D.P.W. for building a Court-house only in 1902. So it cannot be said to have been satisfactorily made out that Chellaperumal Pillai expected in 1900 that a Court-house was going to be built about 1905-1906 and he had an intention of building an office in front of the Court-house which did not exist before 1905. It may be that Chellaperumal Pillai had an idea of building an office on that road. But that is no ground for depriving the plaintiff of a very valuable house-site of considerable extent.