( 1 ) THIS appeal filed by the defendant-appellants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th August, 1979 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Mandleshwar, in C. S. No. 11-A of 1976, whereby he has decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit for declaration and possession in respect of the disputed agricultural property bearing Khata No. 57, Kh. Nos. 37 and 38, having an area of 16. 50, lagan 42. 03 p. situated in village Jaimalpura, Tah. Barwaha holding that the sale deed Ex. D-2 dated 24-3-1972 in respect of these lands is not binding on the plaintiff and is void on the ground that the same was obtained by fraud and without consideration.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff's case in the trial Court was as under : Defendant-appellant No. 1 Hajra Bai is the wife of appellant No. 2 Shamshuddin; appellant No. 3 Gaffur Khan is the brother ofappellant No. 2 Shamshucfdin; that the plaintiff's husband died on 6-7-1971; that she was the owner and in possession of agricultura lands situated in village Jaimalpura Tah Barwaha, bearing Khata No. 57, Kh. Nos. 3 and 38 having an area of 16. 50, lagan 42. 03 p. that the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 are the neighbours of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff's husband and appellant No. 2 Shamshuddin were fast friends having close relations and that similarly plaintiff also has friendly relations with appellant No. 1 Hajra Bai. The Brihatakar Co-operative Society, Barwaha, had to recover a sum of Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4000/- from the plaintiff. On receipt of a notice from the said Society for payment of the dues she was perturbed. As her husband did not have any other close relations at Barwaha and as the plaintiff had close relations with appellants Nos. 1 and 2, being also neighbours she approached appellants Nos. 1 and 2 for their guidance regarding the notice received from the Society. That at that time the plaintiff was suffering from flu and also stone trouble. She was, therefore, not in a fit physical and mental conditions, being sufficiently old apart from the fact that she was illiterate. Thus, being perplexed she was not in a position to take proper decision regarding the amount to be paid to the Society. It was, therefore, impossible for her to consult anyone also on this point apart from the defendants. Further according to her the defendants taking undue advantage of the situation explained and assured the plaintiff that if she would execute a patta in their favour of the agricultural land for a period of one year and deliver possession thereof to them for carrying on the agricultural operations, they would make payment to the Co-operative Society on her behalf and after expiry of the period of one year they would deliver back the possession of the said lands to her. Relying on the word of the defendants she agreed with their suggestion and thus executed the document Ex. D-2 which was registered and handed over possession of the said land to them though in the capacity of a sub-tenant. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER when the plaintiff received notice from the Tahsil office she went there along with the defendants where the defendants again explained to her that some proceedings regarding the measurement of the disputed lands is going on and she was also under the impression that the proceedings pending before the Tahsil are in relation to the measurement of the land. But after the decision in the Tahsil case about 1 years before the filing of the present suit, she came to know that the defendant No. 1 has got her name mutated on these lands by removing that of the plaintiff, whereupon for the first time she learnt from the defendants that the name of defendant No. 1 was mutated on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by her. Thus, according to her fraud was practised upon her in this manner.

( 4 ) IT is also the case of the plaintiff that even though the defendants got the sale deed executed from her, no consideration as mentioned therein was paid to her, except the amount of