Fraud and undue influence findings stand; mesne profits run from the conveyance date under restitution and equity.

Concurrent findings that a deed was procured by fraud and undue influence will not be disturbed absent miscarriage of justice or legal or procedural error, and the finding was upheld. Where the conveyance was set aside, the transferee had to account for rents and profits from the date of the conveyance, not merely from the date of suit, because a party cannot rely on his own wrong and restitutionary, fiduciary and equitable principles require restoration of the parties to their former position. The decree was varied accordingly, with credit and interest adjustments preserved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether concurrent findings that the deed was procured by fraud and undue influence should be disturbed. (ii) From what date the plaintiff was entitled to an account of rents and profits or mesne profits after the conveyance was set aside.

Issue (i): Whether concurrent findings that the deed was procured by fraud and undue influence should be disturbed.

Analysis: Concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below are not to be interfered with unless there is a miscarriage of justice or violation of law or procedure. No sufficient ground was shown for disturbing the concurrent findings that the deed was obtained by fraud and undue influence.

Conclusion: The concurrent findings on fraud and undue influence were upheld.

Issue (ii): From what date the plaintiff was entitled to an account of rents and profits or mesne profits after the conveyance was set aside.

Analysis: The deed was treated as a conveyance which had to be formally set aside, and the defendant could not rely on his own wrong to deny liability for the period from which possession was taken. The matter was supported both by the restitutionary principle embodied in the Contract Act and by the fiduciary principle under the Trusts Act, and, apart from statute, by general equity requiring restoration of the parties to their former position. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to account from the date of the conveyance, with credit allowed to the defendant for sums properly paid and interest on both sides.

Conclusion: The account was to run from 25th November 1924, not from the date of suit.

Final Conclusion: The defendant's appeal failed, the plaintiff's cross-appeal succeeded, and the decree was varied to give effect to the account from the date of the conveyance while leaving the rest of the decree undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fraud and undue influence will not be disturbed without legal or procedural error, and a person who obtains and retains property by such a transaction must account from the date of receipt in restitution and equity.

---