IMPORTANT POINT
In cases involving illiterate or pardanashin women, the burden of proving the proper execution and understanding of a document lies with the beneficiary, particularly when allegations of undue influence or misrepresentation are present.

JUDGMENT :

C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.

1. These Second Appeals are filed against the common judgment and decree in A.S.Nos.41/2005 and 42/2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge-III, Manjeri, dismissing those appeals and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri dismissing O.S.226/2000 and 65/2000.

2. The validity of Ext.B2 (same as Ext.A2) sale deed No. 1052/83 of SRO Vazhakkad, allegedly executed by Amina Umma, the plaintiff in OS 226/2000 in favour of her four daughters is the subject matter in dispute in these appeals. O.S.65/2000 is a suit for injunction filed by the daughters against one of their 4 brothers, alleging that the defendant restrained them from constructing a building in the property, which they obtained as per Ext.B2 assignment deed. Thereafter, the mother filed O.S.226/2000 against the daughters as well as the assignees of the daughters, praying for a declaration that Ext.A2 assignment deed is void and also for recovery of possession of the said property from the defendants, on the strength of her title.

3. The trial court tried both the suits together and decreed the suit filed by the daughters and dismissed the suit filed by the mother. The 1st Appellate court confirmed the finding of the trial court. During the pendency of the 1st appeal, the mother died and out of her four sons, the defendant in O.S.65/2000 was impleaded as additional 2nd appellant and the other 3 sons were impleaded as additional respondents 11 to 13. Dissatisfied with the above judgment and decree of the 1st Appellate Court, these Second Appeals were filed by the additional 2nd appellant before the 1st Appellate Court.

4. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated:

(i) When there is evidence to show that the executant is an illiterate, rustic old woman, is not the burden on the executees to prove that the impugned documents were duly executed by the lady after fully understanding the nature and character of documents?

(ii) Did the courts below go wrong in ignoring those vital aspects while appreciating the evidence?

5. Subsequently the following additional substantial questions of law were also formulated:

(iii) Whether the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court are justified in disbelieving the evidence of PW1, in the light of the fact that she is an old and illiterate lady?

(iv) Whether the trial court and the First Appellate Court are justified in ignoring Exhibit A4 and disbelieving the evidence of PW2?

6. After formulating the additional substantial questions of law, both sides were heard in detail.

7. The trial court as well as the 1st Appellate court disbelieved the evidence of the plaintiff as PW1 on the ground that she had deliberately given false evidence before the court regarding the manner in which she signs. It is true that at the time of evidence PW1 while denying the disputed signature in ExtB2, denied her signature in Ext.A1 power of attorney executed by her and claimed that she never used to affix signature in any documents, but only affix her thumb impression. However, from the available evidence it is revealed that she had executed certain documents even prior to Ext.B2, in which she had affixed her signature. However in the proof affidavit, her case is that, she has got specific signature of her own. It was in the above context, the trial court as well as the 1st Appellate Court held that PW1 is not a reliable witness.

8. The learned counsel for the defendants would argue that Amina Umma was a very old, illiterate and pardanashin lady and as such, merely on the basis of an incorrect answer given by her, her evidence in toto could not be discarded. He has also relied upon certain decisions in support of the above argument.

9. In the decision in Sohrab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2020 relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 7 that:

“.....This Court has held that falsus in u