An illiterate woman, who is not strictly pardanashin, is entitled to the protection of the rule that a party founding on a deed executed by a pardanashin woman has to affirmatively establish that she understood its effect and the deed was intelligently and properly executed by her.

( 1 ) THE question raised in this appeal is whether a deed of sale executed by an illiterate woman without the benefit of independent advice is subject to the same jealous scrutiny of the Court as an instrument executed in similar circumstances by a pardanashin lady strictly so-called.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff who is the appellant before us instituted a suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that a kobala (Ex. 3), dated 10-8-1943, executed by her purporting to transfer to the defendant her homestead land with structures thereon, was invalid, inoperative and unenforceable in law. The allegation is that as a result of undue influence brought to bear upon her by the respondent and the misrepresentation and fraud practised by him, she had been induced to execute the impugned document without knowledge and understanding of its contents.

( 3 ) THE case made by the plaintiff appellant is that having been left a sonless widow five years ago she inherited her husband's property, the subject-matter of the dispute, which is a homestead consisting of 18 rooms partly brick-built with necessary conveniences within the limits of Bhatpara municipal area. Most of the rooms were tenanted and she occupied a part of the premises herself. She was thus in possession of the entire premises. During the lifetime of the appellant's husband relations between her and her parents became very strained and this state of things continued even after the death of her husband. The respondent who professed great friendship for her husband during his life time, took advantage of the situation and kept her from renewing contacts with her parents and their people and suggested that if she made up with them they would grab her property. The appellant unhesitatingly believed in the respondent's profession of sympathy and placed implicit reliance upon him. Sometime thereafter the defendant held out the prospect of a happy married life with a member of his community provided she was prepared to spend about Rs. 500/ -. The plaintiff's will was thus completely dominated by the defendant who suggested the raising of the required amount by mortgaging the property in dispute. Cut off from her relations, the plaintiff had no independent advice and she succumbed to the blandishments of the defendant who took her one day to the Registration office where she was induced by him to put her thumb impression on a stamped document on the representation that the deed was a deed of mortgage. She had thus no knowledge or understanding of the contents of the document which were never read over or explained to her. The execution of the document was kept a secret under the respondent's advice. Thereafter the proposed groom proved disappointing and this annoyed the respondent who threatened to drive her out declaring that the property was already his on the strength of his purchase. The appellant was thus driven to seek the assistance of her father and her uncle and she then discovered that the deed she had executed was not a deed of mortgage but an out-and-out sale. The appellant claimed that the property was valuable property worth about Rs. 8000/- of which the respondent wanted to deprive her by obtaining the kobala by the exercise of undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation. Hence the suit was brought to prevent a cloud being cast upon her title.

( 4 ) THE respondent denied friendship with the appellant's husband and the state of ill-feeling said to exist between the appellant and her parents or the suggestion of raising a loan on the security of the property. He made the specific case that the appellant being in want of money was unable to keep the property in repairs and sold the same for Rs. 520/- by executing the kobala with knowledge and understanding of the contents of the deed which had been read over and explained to her. The respondent's further case was that after the purchase he went into possession by inducting tenants on the premi