The burden of proof lies upon the person who asserts the validity of a transaction to prove that the other party had full understanding of the contents and executed the document voluntarily.

K. P. SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit for cancellation of sale-deeds alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff respondent. The plaintiff-respondent has challenged the sale-deeds on the ground that she was defrauded by the defendants. The defendants are her cousins. They got the sale-deeds in their favour fraudulently and did not explain the contents of the deeds to the lady who is illiterate. Relevant allegations challenging the sale-deeds have been made in para 16 of the plaint.

( 2 ) THE defendants-appellants contested the suit and justified the execution of the sale deeds by the lady and asserted that the sale deeds were valid documents and conferred valid title upon the defendants.

( 3 ) BOTH the courts below have given judgments for the plaintiff-respondent. Aggrieved by their judgments the defendants appellants have approached this Court under S. 100 of the Code of C. P.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has raised two substantial questions of law for consideration; firstly, that the courts below have placed burden on wrong shoulders and, therefore, their findings stand vitiated in lain and deserve to be set aside and secondly that the defendants-appellants are entitled to interest on the money advanced to the plaintiff-respondent.

( 5 ) DURING the course of arguments the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the rulings reported in AIR 1921 Cal 435, Krisna Kisor v. Smt. Nagendrabala; AIR 1936 PC 207, Kundan Lal v. Musharrasi Begum, AIR 1938 Oudh 152, Mt. Mahadei v. Ishwari and AIR 1943 Madras 677, Zohara Khatoon Bibi-v. Mahboobbi and has contended that the plaintiff respondent could get advice of her husband, therefore, the courts below have patently erred in placing burden upon the defendants, appellants to prove that the contents of the deeds were readover and explained to the plaintiff respondent.

( 6 ) I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and I have gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. A bare perusal of the three cases except AIR 1938 Oudh 152 would indicate that it was the duty of the court to satisfy itself upon the evidence whether the deeds were actually executed by the lady or by some person duly authorised by her with full understanding of what she was about to do and that she had full knowledge of the nature and effect of the transactions entered into. I think that the learned counsel for the appellants has not read the rulings between the lines and has wrongly relied upon the three cases. Moreover, in 1965 All LJ 1080 Paras Nath Rai v. Tileshra Kuar, a learned single Judge of this Court has observed as below vide Head Note III and IV:"rules regarding transactions by a Pardahnashin lady are equally applicable to an illiterate and ignorant woman though she may not be a pardahnashin. It is not by reason of the Pardah itself that the law throws its protection round a pardahnashin lady but by reason of those disabilities which a life of seclusion lived by a pardahnashin lady gives rise to, and which are consequently presumed to exist in the case of such a lady. But the disabilities which make the protection necessary may arise from other causes as well. Old age, infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy, mental deficiency, inexperience and dependance upon others, may by themselves create disabilities that may render the protection equally necessary. If, therefore, it is proved that a woman, although she is pot a Pardahnashin lady, suffers from the disabilities to which a pardahnashin lady is presumed to be subject, the validity and the binding nature of a deed executed by her have to be judged in the light of the above principles which are applied to a deed by a Pardahnashin lady. Where the plaintiff was illiterate and when she executed the deed in question she was not only more than 60 years old but was also hard of hearing and she has been described by the defendants themselv