AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We think that the principle under which the Subordinate Judge has held that Exhibit A cannot be enforced as a contract of sale is correct. It is
not only that the alleged price paid--Rs. 4,000--was inadequate for an estate which was worth Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 30,000 ; but that unfair
advantage was taken of the pressing difficulties and necessitous circumstances of the vendors to force upon them a bargain which was hard and
unconscionable. Assuming that plaintiff honestly believed the defendants 2 to 4 to have a good and honest claim the offer to secure his advances
upon the whole estate of 60 velies was more than ample, and if he did not believe the claim a good one the advance was of a champertous
character and for the mere purpose of speculative litigation. The evidence shows that whatever the sum advanced, the conduct of the litigation was
more or less taken out of the hands of the vendors, and though this may be excused on the ground that their poverty and want of experience
prevented them from effectively managing their own affairs, we cannot resist the conclusion that advantage was taken of their necessity to drive a
hard bargain out of which they are entitled to equitable relief. These defendants (2 to 4) must however themselves do equity and are bound to
refund to plaintiff the money actually received.
The Court found upon the evidence, differing from the Court below, that the plaintiff had advanced Rs. 4,000 and gave a decree for that amount
with interest and costs.