Speak cloak of protection to be extended to illiterate women.

Mishra, J.

Thirumalai Vadivu Ammal filed a suit in the Sub Court, Tirunelveli in O.S.No.447 of 1979 to set aside a registered deed of settlement dated 21. 1975 which she herself had executed in favour of her brother’s daughter, the 1st defendant in the suit. The 2nd defendant, 2nd respondent is the husband of the 1st defendant, 1st respondent. She sought cancellation of the said deed on the ground that the respondents misrepresented that she was executing only a power of attorney for collecting the arrears of rent from the tenants. According to her, thus, the respondents exercised undue influence and fraudulently got the said document executed on the above misrepresentation.

2. The defendants/respondents denied the plea of misrepresentation, undue influence and fraud, denied that there were any arrears due from the tenants and stated that there was no necessity to execute a power deed. They came out with a positive case that the 1st defendant/1st respondent was brought up by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff gave her in marriage to the 2nd defendant/2nd respondent and met the marriage expenses. She, according to the defendants/respondents, executed the settlement deed knowing fully that she was transferring her interest in the property to her brother’s daughter i.e.., to say, 1st defendant/ 1st respondent, V has since died. Her heirs and legal representatives are on record as per order of Court dated 14. 1987 in C.M.P. 14184 of 1987 in A.S.231 of 1981.

3. The trial Court held that there was no misrepresentation, fraud or undue influence in the execution of deed of settlement as alleged by the plaintiff. A learned single Judge of this Court has affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. He has taken up the plea of undue influence and fraud separately and said in respect of undue influence that there was no such allegation in the suit notice and that the necessary ingredients of undue influence have not been pleaded at all and in respect of misrepresentation or fraud that he did not think that there was anything in the case which would make him to come to a different conclusion from that of the Trial Court.

4. Before we proceed further, we may recapitulate that in the plaint, it was stated by the plaintiff that her husband died on 111. 1973 without any issue and without any will. She was very old, but possessed nanja land, which was leased to one A., who did not pay to her the lease of two crops (rent in kind). She felt that she needed a male or female helper to collect paddy from the lessee and to look after her other affairs. She had no other relative except her brother who was not in good terms with her and “the 1st defendant, the daughter of her brother who had no connection with her father, was close to her (the plaintiff) from 1974-75 onwards and helping her.” The defendants told her to give a registered power of attorney to collect the arrears of paddy from A. She suspected nothing foul and agreed to execute the power of attorney. The plaint also contains a statement that the 2nd defendant took her signature in the document which was made ready. The contents of the document were not read over to her. The 2nd defendant/respondent took her to the office of the Sub Registrar and instructed her that she needed to talk to none and say before the Sub Registrar that she had no heir other than the 1st defendant. The plaintiff, it is said in the plaint, then put her thumb impression in the presence of the Sub Registrar. The Sub Registrar did not ask anything from her. She did not purchase any stamp paper or pay any money for the registration charges. The 2nd defendant undertook to get the said document from the Sub Registrar’s office and the plaintiff believed the same. Two years after the registration of the said document, i.e.., sometime in January, 1977, the defendants came and lived with the plaintiff. Even at that time, the plaintiff did not suspect the defendants. The plaintiff informed the lessee A. that she ha