JUDGMENT

Straight, Offg. C.J.

1. This was a suit brought, by the plaintiff Behari Lal upon a bond, dated the 16th of September 1873 for Rs. 6 700, Purporting to have been executed by one Rafi-ud-dm, for himself and for hi, w.e., Habiba Bib. and by one Nurul Hasan on behalf of his wile Salima Bibi. The two ladies were the daughters of Fakhr-ud-din Ahmad, and Rah-ud-dm was his neuhew, and the property said to have been charged admittedly came to the hands of the obligors upon the death, of Fakhr-ud-din to whom it had belonged. The bond of the 16th of September 1873, was, as I have said, not signed by either Habiba Bibi or Sahma Bib and it we subsequently presented for registration by one Maula Khan, who professed to be authorized in that behalf by a power-of-attorney, dated the 17th September 1873. Now the bond can only be given in evidence and held to be binding against the ladies, qua their Immovable property charged therein, if it was duly registered, and the question whether it was so registered turns upon whether the power-of-attorney was in fact made by them, with their conscious consent and lull knowledge and comprehension of what they were authorizing Maula Khan to do. The Subordinate Judge has found that the bond to the plaintiff was not proved to have been executed with toe knowledge of the ladies; that they are not shown to have benefited by it in any way; and, as I understand him, he also rejected the power-of-attorney as not binding on them.

2. It is upon this latter point that I am prepared to deal with the appeal and dispose of it Now there can be no doubt--and many Privy Council rulings are to be found approving the principle--that in cases such as that before me, in which the interests of pardah-nashin women are concerned, those who seek to affect them with liability under an instrument of the kind sued on here, are bound to prove that they had knowledge of the nature and character of the transaction into which they are said to have entered, that they had some independent and disinterested adviser in the matter, and that they put their hands to the document relied on, or authorized some other persons to execute it for them, fully understanding what they were about in doing so. the present case all that the plaintiff has proved by one witness, Imam-ud-din, is that upon a particular day he went to the residence of the ladies, with whom he was not personally acquainted, nor did he know their voices He says there were two women behind a purdah who were sale by their husbands, Rafi-ud-din and Nurul Hasan, to be their respective wives, and that these persons ackowledged they had made the power-of-attorney Now I will go the length of saying that even if the ladies behind the pardah were in fact the two defendant Musammats, I should not, in reference to the principles already enunciated, be prepared to hold that this is enough to bind them. I think it was for the plaintiff--who is seeking to bring their property to sale on the strength of a transaction with these two pardah-nashin. Indies--to show that they were free agents in the matter, and, having a dear knowledge of what they were doing, accorded their consent to it. This, in my opinion, he has wholly failed to do, and, under such circumstances, I think the lower Court was right in dismissing the suit, and I therefore dismiss the appeal with costs. With regard to the application made to-day for the admission of the mukhtarnama, which was rejected below, it is unnecessary to say more than that I have dealt with the case as if it were in evidence.

Mahmood, J.

3. I am of the same opinion. I entirely concur with the learned Chief Justice in his estimate of the evidence. It is an estimate which I, from my acquaintance with the facts of Muhammadan life to which it refers, accept as in keeping with the rulings of the Privy Council in such matters, which have done for the pardah-nashm women what their life requires, which is, that they should be placed, by analogy, on a footing