Indarnarayen, J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Nadiad dismissing the plaintiff's suit in which the plaintiff prayed (a) for a declaration that he is entitled to a half share in the joint family property which would come to the share of the defendant after the date of the award, (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disposing of any property of his share either by sale, mortgage, gift, will, or otherwise, (c) for an order directing the defendant to pay to him Rs. 40 per year in future out of the sum of Rs. 900 which the defendant has been getting every year by virtue of the award, and (d) for recovery from the defendant of Rs. 80 for a period of two years from January 24, 1931, to January 24, 1933.
(2.)THE facts giving rise to this case are that one Pranlal, who had inherited property from his father Premchand, died leaving three sons : Bhailal the defendant in this case a son by his first wife, the other two being Natvarlal and Sumantlal a minor aged two years at the date of his father's death on January 18, 1929. After the death of Pranlal the property was being managed by Kamala his widow, the present defendant's step-mother, and his maternal uncle Maneklal Chhotalal. After some time the defendant appears to have written a letter to his uncle asking him to cease managing the property and to give him his share. As this, it is, alleged, met with no response, legal proceedings were threatened. THE plaintiff in this case persuaded the defendant to enter into an agreement on October 5, 1930, which is exhibit 2/1 wherein the defendant recites : Whereas I have no money or means to bring) a suit with regard to the said property 1 pass this karar to you. (1) That I pass this agreement to give you eight annas share from my share in return for bringing a suit with regard to the moveable and immoveable property of my said father and my ancestors and for all the trouble you may undergo and for all the expenses you may incur in filing and conducting the suit. (2) You have to incur all the expenses for fighting out the suit and I have to give you a share stated above out of the property which I might get either by a private settlement or by the decision1 of the Court. (3) Even if I have not to file a suit or if I go over to and ally myself with them from to-day or if there is a private settlement or if there is no partition at all I shall give you according to the terms of this karar from the share that I might receive from the moveable and immoveable property of my father and ancestors. . . I bind myself to pass a pacca karar on a stamp piaper about this matter. This karar shall be considered to take effect from to-day. Dated October 5, 1930. If I ally myself with any one else or in Court all my contentions shall be null and void.
In pursuance of the agreement herein to pass a pacca kararnama the defendant executed exhibit 31/1 on a stamp paper on November 3, 1930. The contents of the second agreement are more or less on the same lines as the first kaccha karar, the effect being that the defendant promised to give a half share to the plaintiff from such property as he might get whether by a suit, by private settlement or in any other manner from his step-mother and brothers.

On October 13, 1930, i. e. only eight days later, a reference paper was signed by all the parties referring all disputes to the sole arbitration of Mr. M. M. Bhatt a retired Judge who heard the case at Thasra on December 21, 1930, and published his award on January 20, 1931. This award was subsequently filed in Court and a decree was passed thereon on January 24, 1931. The arbitrator has been examined in this case and has stated in his evidence that he does not know the plaintiff at all and that it was defendant's uncle Maneklal and defendant who came to ask him to take up the arbitration. The evidence thus shows that the arbitration was not brought about by the plaintiff. In his award, which is exhibit 10, the defendant is referred to as " a good man ", but " he is a man of vacillating mind and soft heart. His health also is not such as it should be. He has neither received sufficient education. So he does not understand either the extent of his estate or how to take care of it," The award decided that the family property should remain joint and undivided under any circumstances for at least fifteen years from the date of the award and the arbitrator further stated therein " As it is not proposed to make a partition to-day, I do not determine the parties' respective shares. After the abovementioned period (fifteen years) is over, if the parties desire, the property may be divided according to law. " Certain restrictions were also placed on Bhailal's (defendant's) share in the property in case he had a son living at the time. The defendant Bhailal was, however, directed to be given Rs. 900 per annum (Rs. 75 per month) for his ordinary expenses which amount was, however, debitable to his account to be adjusted at the time of distribution after calculating upon it interest at annas four per cent. per month.

(3.)THE plaint in this case alleges that this arbitration was brought about by the efforts of the plaintiff in this case in pursuance of the karars executed by the defendant in his favour and that his cause of action arose on January 24, 1931, as the judgment on, the award decree was delivered on that day. THE plaintiff claims a money decree for Rs. 80 at Rs. 40 per year for the past two years out of the Rs. 450 to which he would have been entitled strictly under the terms of his karar. He seeks a declaration that it should be declared that he is entitled to a half share in the property which the defendant might get as a result of the arbitration award and that the plaintiff should get Rs. 40 a year from the allowance of Rs. 75 a month which the defendant would get as a result of that award.
The agreement on which the plaintiff's suit is based shows per se that it was an unconscionable and extortionate bargain. The family property is, it is mentioned, of the value of five to six lakhs of rupees. The plaintiff in his plaint assesses the amount of the claim at Rs. 30,000 for purposes of jurisdiction. In the written statement it is pointed out that this is an undervaluation, that the amount would be at least Rs. 62,000. The defendant in his written statement further denies executing these two documents and alleges that blank signed papers were taken from him by' deceit and undue influence by the plaintiff and these two documents seem to have been subsequently made up on those papers. It is further denied that there was any denial of the defendant's rights in the joint family property by his stepmother or his uncle and it is further pleaded that the plaintiff taking advantage of the weak condition of the defendant's mind and with a view to snatch away portion of the joint family property by making the family members quarrel instigated the plaintiff to ask for partition. It is further denied that the plaintiff took any part in getting the arbitrator appointed or in having the award decree passed or that he had incurred any expenses for this purpose. It is further pleaded that the agreements are invalid by reason of being champertous and against public policy.