JUDGMENT :- This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs-appellants.

2. The suit of the plaintiffs-appellants, which was for a declaration of their title to and possession of certain agricultural lands situate in village Ghat Pipariya, tahsil Multai, district Betul, was, inter alia, based on the following allegations; that the suit fields belonged to the mother of the plaintiffs-appellants who were Gond illiterate women; that on the death of their mother, the suit fields along with some other fields were inherited by them; that after the death of their mother, the husband of plaintiff Koze looked after her fields; that the husband of Koze also died a few years before the filing of the suit; that the defendant-respondent, who was also a Gond, taking advantage of the illiteracy of the plaintiff Mst. Koze, induced her to go and live with him with a view to exploit her ignorance; that during the course of her stay with the defendant, the latter fraudulently got a sale deed executed by Mst. Koze in his favour on or about the 18th of February 1963; that thereafter the defendant induced the plaintiff Koze to go with him to Multai for the registration of the deed telling her that she had only to execute a theka-chitthi in respect of the suit fields in favour of the defendant on condition that the defendant would maintain her and give her Rs. 40/-per year as maintenance allowance; that instead of getting a theka-chitthi executed, the defendant fraudulently got a sale deed executed by her for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 1,000/-; that the plaintiff Mst. Koze did not receive the said consideration nor any part of it then or ever; that the document was not read over to her nor explained to her; that at the time of the registration one currency-note was handed over to her which was subsequently taken back from her by the attesting witness Zanak; that after the execution of the said deed of sale, the defendant turned the plaintiff Mst. Koze out of his house; and that the deed of sale dated 18-2-1963 was obtained from her by fraud and was invalid and ineffective against her. In the result, the plaintiff Koze claimed that it be declared that the sale deed aforesaid was a bogus and fraudulent document and that possession of the suit fields be restored to her.

3. The defendant-respondent contested the suit alleging, inter alia, that the plaintiff Mst. Koze was the sole and exclusive owner of the suit fields; that she had sold them to him of her own free will and volition; that he had practised no fraud or undue influence on her to induce her to execute the sale deed in question in his favour; that the consideration mentioned in the deed of sale had been paid to the plaintiff Koze; that the suit had been brought by her at the instance of one Jiyalal who was financing the litigation and who had an eye on the fields.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit fields belonged to Mst. Koze and that she had executed the sale deed in question of her own free will and for a consideration. It further held that there was no fraud or undue influence practised on the plaintiff Mst. Koze to induce her to enter into the transaction in suit. On appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Betul.

5. In this second appeal, the learned counsel for plaintiffs-appellants contends that on the fact and circumstances of the case it should have been held that the transaction in question was vitiated because of fraud and undue influence. The facts and circumstances on which he contends that the inference of fraud and undue influence should be drawn are as follows: that the woman (the plaintiff Koze) was a Gond widow; that she was illiterate with no male member to help or guide her in her decisions; that the amount of the consideration had not been paid before the Sub-Registrar and, according to the plaintiff Mst. Koze, no amount of the sale consideration had ever been paid to her and that a