A person in a fiduciary relationship with another has a duty to protect the interest given to his care, and the Court watches with jealousy all transactions between such persons so that the protector may not use his influence or the confidence to his advantage.

This appeal is from the judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1971 passed by the District Judge, Manipur, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Munsiff, Manipur, in O. S. No. 3 of 1970.

2. The plaintiffs suit is for declaration that the sale deed dated 22-5-1968 purporting to transfer her ingkhol measuring 67 acre of land to the defendant is void on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. The material facts of her case may be stated. She is an illiterate Pardanashin widow. The defendant is her son-in-law. She, being alone has been living on the aforesaid land with the defendant and his wife Sherajan Bibi, daughter of the plaintiff, she reposed complete confidence in the defendant. The plaintiff agreed to make a gift of the land to her daughter. Accordingly, on 22-5-1968 the defendant took her to Thoubal, where, she was told, the gift would be effected but there, instead, he managed to draw up the impugned sale deed and obtain her thumb impression on it on the representation that that document would be necessary for mutating the name of her daughter, Sherajan, in respect of the land as a gift by her. The document was registered the same day. Later on, the plaintiff came to know that the deed was a sale deed at a price of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of the defendant himself. The defendant got his name mutated. She filed an application in revision against the order of mutation but that was rejected. Hence, she has filed the present suit.

3. The defendant has filed a written statement and contested the suit. His case is that the plaintiff really sold the land to him, executed the impugned sale deed and delivered possession of the land and that since the date of purchase he has been in exclusive possession of it. He has denied the plaintiffs allegation that she wanted to make a gift of the property to her daughter.

4. The learned Munsiff framed, inter alia, the following material issues.

"(1) Was the sale transaction of the suit land under the registered sale deed dated 22-5-1968 void?

(2) Is the plaintiff in possession of the land?

(3) Is the suit to be dismissed for want of consequential relief?

xx xx xx

(6) Is the plaintiff entitled to the reliefs as claimed?".

and after trial, he decreed the plaintiffs suit.

5. The learned Munsiff has found that the plaintiff is an illiterate and ignorant village woman, she lived with defendent under the same roof. The defendant deposed in his evidence that he never lived with the plaintiff, but his father D. W. 1 has given a lie to his evidence saying that the defendant has been living with the plantiff on the land in question for three years. The learned Munsiff has rejected the evidence of the defendant and accepted that of D. W. 1. The learned Munsiff also has found that the defendant took her to Thoubal to effect a gift of the land. She did not know that she was taken to the office of the Registering Officer. The learned Munsiff also has found that the plaintiff did not allow the attesting witness. D. W. 3 to accompany them. D. W. 3 arrived at Thoubal after the execution of the deed had been completed. He has also found that the plaintiff told D. W. 3 in presence of the defendant that she had gifted the land to her daughter but the defendant was silent. According to the learned Munsiff his silence amounted to an active concealment of the truth that the transaction was not intended to be a sale. The learned Munsiff has also found that the nature of the deed was not made known to the plaintiff and that there was no consideration to the purported sale. He has found that the defendant did not lead any evidence to prove the payment of the consideration. The defendant has neither deposed that he paid the consideration. He is silent on it. It was D. W. 4. the scribe, who deposed to the effect that the document was read over to the plaintiff and that the consideration was received by her. But, he has been disbelieve