In the case of a sale deed executed by an illiterate person, there is a presumption of undue influence, and the burden of proof is on the vendee to show that the sale deed was executed freely and voluntarily.

O.N.Asthana, J.

1. This is the first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 1976 passed by Sub-Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No. 405 of 1972, where the trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is owner of the properties given in Schedules 1 and 2 of the plaint and that the defendsints have got no right, title and interest.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is owner and is in possession of these properties; that the agricultural land given in Schedule A is fertile and gives the yield of Rupees eighty thousand in two years; and the plaintiff and his wife are living and their children died at an early age, and the plaintiff is an illiterate man of 60 years of age with no issues; that the defendants and their associate Mohan Lal live in the house close to the house of the plaintiff and they had been visiting the plaintiff often, and the plaintiff had full faith in the defendants and their associate Mohan Lal; that the defendants told this plaintiff that Ramadhar was selling his land at interest and the plaintiff might be a witness to the sale deeds being executed by Ramadhar Singh; and the plaintiff agreed to this suggestion of the defendants, and the plaintiff came thrice to the Registration Office, and the plaintiff put his thumb impression on the blank stamp papers at different intervals thrice outside the Registration Office; that later on the plaintiff came to know that the defendants got prepared the sale deeds said to be executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants on 15th January, 1971, 17th August, 1971 and 24th September, 1971; that no sale consideration was received by the plaintiff and that the necessity shown in the sale deeds are all false; that all these three sale deeds are forged, fraudulent and void being without consideration.

4. Defence is that the land was not fertile and the income from the land was not sufficient to meet the necessity of the plaintiff and the house of the plaintiff was in much dilapidated condition and the plaintiff executed the sale deeds telling the necessity of repairing the house, purchasing the bullock for the cultivation and for the marriage of his daughters daughter Buchia Devi; that the consideration of the sale deeds was paid to the plaintiff; that the defendants were not close to the plaintiff, and Mohan Lal was not close to the defendants that the plaintiff sold away these properties to the defendants and the plaintiff alongwith his wife wanted to settle at his father-in-laws house in order that his wife and he get the services of the relations in their old age, and that the nephews of the plaintiff got filed this suit for their own selfish gains.

5. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff-appellant contended that the evidence establishes that the sale-deeds were obtained by undue influence and fraud, and that the plaintiff was also illiterate.

6. According to the plaintiffs case this plaintiff put his thumb impression on three different dates on the blank stamp papers on the request of the defendants. The plaintiff might be illiterate but it does not seem probable that the plaintiff would have been putting his thumb impression time and again on different occasions on the blank stamp papers on the request of the defendants. The defendants might be the neighbours and thus known to the plaintiff but there is nothing special in the evidence of the parties as to show that the defendants were in a position to exercise undue influence on the plaintiff.

7. The deposition of the plaintiff Ramdeo P.W. 13 in para 24 of his statement shows that this plaintiff was knowing from his childhood that these defendants Kapildeo and Ramadhar were dishonest persons. In view of it, the plaintiff might be having faith in these defendants when the plaintiff came in the compound of the Registration Office is not borne out.

8. Plaintiff stated in his statement on oath in para