An illiterate person must be aware of the contents of a sale deed before it can be considered valid.

The plaintiff as appel lant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 114 of 1978 dated 2-9-82 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit being numbered as 549 of 1975 which was filed in the Court of Munsif, Haveli, Meerut. It is the plaintiffs case that the plaintiff is an illeterate, simple and old man aged about 60 years and he is hard of hearing and his eye sight is also very weak. He is the owner and in possession of the disputed agricultural land. It was contended that amount of Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 4500/- was due to Bank and Co-operative Societies and some amount was also due which was taken from some other villagers. Therefore, he was badly needed Rs. 1000/- to liquidate the said debts. The plaintiff asked the husband of the defendants to advance a loan of Rs. 10, 000/-to him. The husband of the defendants agreed to pay, on condition that the plain tiff to execute mortgage deed with 1% per mensem interest after depositing 20 times annual rental in Tahsil. The plaintiff agreed to the proposal and thereafter the plaintiff and the husband of the respondents ex ecuted the mortgage deed and plaintiff deposited 20 times of rent for converting his right into bhumidhari right and after two days to that, he went to the office of Sub-Registrar with the husbands of the defen dants with the witnesses, who were the per sons of the husbands of the defendants. The plaintiff and the witnesses, when the sale deed was being written, had been asked to sit in some distant place on the pretext that there was crowed at the place of scribe and after the document was written, he was asked to put his thumb impressions. The plaintiff, who had confidence in the hus bands of the defendants and was in need of money, put his thumb impressions at many places. As per instruction of the husband of the defendant No. 1 he deposed that he had executed the document and he to receive Rs. 10000/ -. The Sub-Registrar had inquired from him only these two things and he had answered in affirmative. Later on he was told that the document was a sale-deed for his lands for Rs. 20. 000/- executed by him in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff took the copy of the sale-deed and got the con tents read over and then came to know that the defendant and the witnesses managed to fet the sale-deed executed in respect of the isputed land in favour of the defendants, though there was talk a simple mortgage for a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- in respect of the dis puted land.

3. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the contents of the deed were never read over and explained to the plaintiff and he became the victim of fraud and collusion made by the defendants husbands Bankey Lal and another. The land in question was a highly fertile agricultural land and the market price was not less than Rs. 90. 000/-at that time and as such there was no oc casion for him to sell the land for Rs. 20. 000/- and he never received any amount more than Rs. 10, 000/ -.

4. The defendants contested the suit. The entire allegations of the plaint were denied and it was contended that it was a simple sale-deed. The plaintiff actually received Rs. 10, 000/- earlier as earnest money and later on received Rs. 10. 000/- as balance consideration money and executed the document. He knew the contents of the documents and the money was paid by the plaintiff for depositing Rs. 581. 20 on 6-2-74 for obtaining bhumidhari right, Rs. 5857. 61 paid to the United Commercial Bank Meerut and Rs. 3562 had been paid to Ved Prakash. The receipts of payment were given by the plaintiff to the defendants. On 8-2-74 the plaintiff executed the sale-deed of the disputed land in the presence of the witnesses of his choice and after getting the sale-deed executed and after understanding its contents he received a sum of Rs. 10, 000/-, before the Sub-Registrar, Meerut and the possession of the disputed land was delivered