The burden of proof in transactions with illiterate individuals rests on the party seeking to sustain the transaction, and it can be discharged by proving the individual's understanding of the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

Plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing judgment. The suit was for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and to set aside the sale deed dated 26.3.84/27.3.84 as fraudulent and invalid.

2. The case of the plaintiff was that she had purchased the suit land by means of a registered sale deed dated 20.10.59. Her husband was ailing for a considerable period. Some disputes were raised by the boundary tenants of the suit land. The original defendant was an agnatic relation of her husband. He approached her to execute a power of attorney in his favour, so that he will look after the suit land on her behalf. Believing him, she went to the Sub-Registrar’s Office and executed the deed. According to her, it was a power of attorney. Thereafter, the defendant threatened her to dispossess from the suit land stating that he had purchased the suit land. She obtained the certified copy of the sale deed and came to know that in the garb of a power of attorney, the defendant snatched away the document in shape of a sale deed. No consideration was paid to her. She is an illiterate pardanashin lady and only knows how to sign her name. With this factual scenario, she instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

3. The defendant entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to him, the plaintiff purchased the suit land on 20.10.59 from Gopinath Sahu. She was the owner of the suit land. To press her legal necessity, she wanted to sell the suit land for a consideration of Rs.9,900/-. The defendant agreed to the proposal and paid Rs.1500/- to the plaintiff. The balance Rs.8400/- was to be paid at the time of registration. The plaintiff supplied the required documents. The deed was scribed at her instance. She executed the document after fully understanding the contents of the documents. She received the consideration amount. The land was mutated in his favour. He paid land revenue. Since then, he is in possession of the land. The plaintiff is not a pardanashin or illiterate lady. She can write her name and read the document. She is able to distinguish different documents.

4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck four issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their respective cases. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff does not know reading or writing. She had only learnt to put her signature. She had not attended the school. She is an illiterate pardanashin lady. She had no independent advice either from her husband or from her illatom son-in-law or daughter residing with her. There is no endorsement that the plaintiff signed or appended her signature after understanding the contents to be correct. The scribe had not put her signature below the certificate of endorsement. The scribe did not say that the Sub-Registrar had read over and explained the contents to the plaintiff. The defendant failed to discharge the burden that lay on him. No consideration was paid. The sale deed is not legal and valid. Held so, it decreed the suit. The legal heirs of the defendant preferred T.A. No.54 of 1992 before the learned Additional District Judge, Jajpur. Learned lower appellate court allowed the appeal with findings that the plaintiff is not an illiterate pardanashin lady. She executed the sale deed after receiving the amount from the defendant and delivered possession. It is apt to mention here that during pendency of the second appeal, the sole appellant died. The legal heirs have been substituted.

5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

1. Whether the learned lower appellate court was correct in his finding that the plaintiff was neither a pardanasin nor illiterate lady simply because she could on verification purported to have distinguished various documents ?

2. Whether the learned lower appellate court was correct in throwing onus of proof on the plai