IN MEMORIAM—JOHN YARKER
as the father of
. the boys, is entitled to act as their guardian
and is entitled to their custody, and further submits that the
letter referred to in paragraph 4 cannot have the effect ofde-
priving him of the same; even assuming that it could, under
the circumstances above detailed the defendant has proved
herself totally unfit to be in charge of the boys, and the
boys ought to be removed from her charge.
When the said
letter was given, the plaintiff believed the defendant to be
superhuman
and was completely under her influence and
control, and he took her to be his preceptress who should be
obeyed implicitly and make any sacrifice demanded, and the
contract, if any, made under such circumstances, is voidable
on the ground of undue influence.
In any case, if the defen-
dant is unfit to be entrusted with the guardianship of the
minors, the plaintiff’s natural right as the guardian will again
arise, inasmuch as the letter, if valid in law, was only a sur—
render of the rights in favour 0f the defendant alone, The
plaintiff’s delay in taking action against the defendant has
been due only to the faith which until recently he shared
with many other persons that the defendant was semi—divine,
and that the plaintiff was exceptionally fortunate in getting
the defendant to take charge of the boys.
The plaintiff was
also led to believe that the
boy Krishnamurti was
also
possessed of divine attributes, and the, plaintiff had to change
his belief only on discovery of the circumstances connected
with Leadbeater’s connection with the boys and on the con-
fession of the boy himself that the book A! the Feel of f/ze
Master was not written by Krishnamurti, and on the dis-
covery of the preSent imperfect state of their education.
These circumstances came to light only during the latter part
2I