In the case of a deed executed by a paradanasin and illiterate lady, the rule evolved for protection of such a lady is to the effect that it must be established that the lady executed the document after the document was read over and explained, to her and she executed, the same on knowing the contents thereof and has confused with the doctrine of fraud or undue influence andisuch erroneous approach has vitiated the ultimate conclusion.

G. B. PATTANAIK, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF is the appellant against a reversing judgement in a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession on annulling the gift deed dated 24-9-1973 (Ext. C) executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 and for permanent injunction against the defendant.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF case, in brief, is that defendant No. 1 and her husband (defendant No. 2) were staying close by the plaintiff's residence. Defendant No. 1 is the plaintiff's husband's brother's daughter. While the plaintiff was ill and was suffering from severe chest pain, she wanted some money to meet the medical expenses and, therefore, she approached defendant No. 2 for a loan of Rs. 300/- defendant No. 2 insisted that some land should be given on mortgage. The plaintiff agreed to execute a mortgage deed and for that purpose went to the Sub Registrar's Office and on the proposed mortgage deed put her thumb impression. The document in question had never been read over and explained to her and even that document could not be presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar on that day. The plaintiff was brought again to the Sub-Registrar's office later on 27-9-1973 on which date the document was registered and plaintiff's thumb mark was obtained on the registration receipt. The plaintiff received the sum of Rs. 300/- from defendant No. 2 In 1974, the plaintiff wanted to repay the amount and redeems the mortgage, but defendant No. 2 denied to have given any money to the plaintiff nor did he agree to return the document. When plaintiff called a panchayati, defendant No. 2 gave out that plaintiff had executed a deed of gift in favour of defendants No. 1 and, therefore, on being aware of the said fact, the plaintiff filed the suit. It was also alleged that taking advantage of her illiteracy and by practising fraud, the document (Ext. C) has been snatched away from her. The plaintiff further alleged that she continues to be in possession of the property and defendants 1 and 2 had never possessed the same.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS filed their written statements denying the allegations made in the plaint. According to them the plaintiff out of love and affection towards defendant No. 1 executed the gift deed in question voluntarily out of her own free will and there has been no fraud or undue influence excercised upon her as alleged. It is their case that it is the plaintiff herself who fixed up the date for execution of the deed of gift and appeared herself before the Sub-Registrar, presented the document for registration which was duly read over to her and then she executed the same. Defendant No. 1 has also pleaded a case of oral gift made by the plaintiff in her favour.

( 4 ) ON these pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed as many as 6 issues. On consideration of the materials on record on issues Nos. 3 and 4, the learned trail Judge came to hold that on the evidence led by the defendants it is impossible to say that, the plaintiff executed the gift deed after understanding the nature and purport of the document and, therefore, no title accrued to defendant No. 1 by virtue of Ext. C. He further held that the cumulative effect of all the circumstances is that in all probability, the plaintiff was defrauded while she was executing Ext. C. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned trial Judge relied upon the ancillary findings namely that plaintiff was an illiterate lady; that she was ill on the date of execution of the disputed document; that the certificate of the scribe appearing on Ext. C and his oral evidence do not show that the plaintiff understood the contents of the document and participated in the execution and that though specific allegations of fraud were made against defendants 2 and 3, none of them chose to come to the box to deny the allegations. With these findings, the trial Judge decreed the suit and came to hold that defendant No. 1 had acquired no title under Ext. C and plaintiff continues to be in p