The burden of proof lies on the person who seeks to sustain a transaction entered into with a pardanashin lady to establish that the said document was entered into by her after clearly understanding the nature of the transaction.

R. C. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal against the confirming decisions of the courts below, arising out of a suit for declaration of title on declaration that defendant No. 1 had no title to the property and for confirmation of possession and injunction and for setting aside the sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 6.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff alleged that she was the heir of the property left by her husband, her son having had a premature death. Defendant No. 1 has married her eldest daughter. After the death of her son, defendant No. 1, her son-in-law came to live in her house and looked after her. Some time later, he asked her to execute a power-of-attorney for facility of management of her property. In good faith, she executed a document in favour of defendant No. 1. She continued to enjoy and possess the property left by her husband till in 1975 her possession was disturbed and on enquiry she learned that on the pretext of the power-of-attorney a sale deed was taken from her on 20-2-1961 and defendant No. 1 later on alienated property in favour of defendant No. 1 and a sale deed was obtained by defendant No. 6. She alleged that she had no idea that a sale deed was taken because she was throughout in possession.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 9 was a co-sharer of the plaintiff's husband. He and defendant No. 1 filed joint written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 stated that the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in his favour was a sham document and he did not acquire any right, title or interest. Defendants 2, 3, 5 and 6 filed a joint written statement stating that defendant No. 1 had joined hands with the plaintiff with a view to depriving them of their property. Plaintiff knowingly executed the sale deed which was acted upon and various purchases were made by them from defendant No. 1 and so on the title was unimpeachable and they were in possession.

( 4 ) THE trial Court recorded a finding that defendant No. 1 was in an advantageous position to prevail upon the plaintiff and the onus was on the purchasers to prove that the documents were duly executed by the plaintiff. It further found that defendant No. 1 had furnished no explanation as to under what circumstances he obtained the sale deed instead of power-of-attorney. The question of delivery of possession was not important as defendant No. 1 was staying in the house of the plaintiff. Having regard to the relationship, the low consideration, i. e. , Rs. 300 for 2. 70 acres was not material and the sale deed Ext. B was duly executed by the plaintiff. The suit was also barred by limitation. The appellate Court found that the suit was barred by limitation, the suit having been filed beyond 12 years from the time of transfer by defendant No. 1. The question of adequacy of consideration was irrelevant. The transfers by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and others were valid and the plaintiff had no title to the property.

( 5 ) THE appellate judgment, to say the least, is confused, unclear and perfunctory. The complaint of the parties before me is well-warranted. Issues have been jumbled up and the discussion is not clear.

( 6 ) THE approach to the evidence does not appear to have been made keeping the perspective of the law in the background nor does there appear a discussion of the law applicable.

( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY the plaintiff is an illiterate lady. Her thumb impression on Ext. b is eloquent testimony in support. Defendant No. 1 is the son-in-law. He lives with the plaintiff for a score of years and more, manages the household and looks after the property. He had the capacity and occasion to influence, prevail upon. Naturally the mother-in-law was his ward and the relationship was one of trust. 2. 70 acres were taken under Ext. B, the registered sale deed, by the son-in-law from the mother-in-law for a consideration of Rs. 300. The plaintiff