Judgment :- 1. The appellant is same in both the appeals. She was the 1st defendant in O.S. 478 of 1118 and the plaintiff in O.S. 307 of 1119 of the Vadakkancherry Munsiff's Court. O.S. 478 of 1118 was by the manager of Malabar Brahmin Mana for the recovery of arrears of Michavarom and other dues in respect of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties outstanding with the 1st defendant by name Pathumma under three Kanom Kychits, Ext. B dated 29.8.1108 for the A schedule properties, Ext. D dated 32.12.1109 for the B schedule properties and Ext. A dated 3.6.1116 for the C Schedule properties. The 1st defendant's contentions in respect of the claims for A and B schedule properties were confined to the Paravassi price for paddy and millet and interest claimed in respect thereof and also to the mode of appropriation of Rs. 846-1-0 sent by her by money order. She had also pleaded full discharge of her liabilities by that remittance. Her contentions as regards the C schedule properties were the subject of the controversy in O.S. 478 of 1118, and the connected case O.S. 307 of 1119. She stated that she was holding the C schedule properties under the terms of a Kychit Ext. F of 1074 and not under Ext. A of 1116. According to her, she was an ignorant and unlettered pardanashin woman and she came to execute Ext. A without understanding its contents or implications as a result of fraud, collusion, undue influence and misrepresentation at a time when her sole adviser her husband was undergoing the sentence passed against him in a criminal case. This Ext. A contained unconscionable terms different from the prior Kychit Ext. F. She would not have accepted Ext. A had she known the real import of the same. It was therefore not binding on her or the C schedule properties. She was however prepared and ready to pay the dues according to the terms of Ext. F. While Ext. F had not made any provision for Kuttikanam (WOaM"LeU) on account of trees of wild growth in the C schedule properties and the payment of Aadiyanthiram, these directions were made in Ext. A for the payment of the same. The capacity of the Jenmi's Para was mentioned in Ext. A to be 11 Edangalies according to the standard measure. She questioned this as well. A for the payment of the same. The capacity of the Jenmi's Para was mentioned in Ext. A to be 11 Edangalies according to the standard measure. She questioned this as well. Minor contentions relating to the rate of paddy and millet were also raised in the case. 2. The connected suit O.S. 307 of 1119 was filed by this Pathumma for a declaration that the Kanom Kychit Ext. A of O.S. 478 of 1118 which was the same as Ext.1 in O.S. 307 of 1119 was not binding on her or the properties scheduled in the plaint. The properties here were the C schedule properties in O.S. 478 of 1118. Her grounds of attack of this Kanom Kychit of 1116 were alleged in this plaint to obtain the relief that the said document was not binding on her or the properties. 3. O.S. 478 of 1118 was tried and decided first. The trial court found that the terms in Ext. A relating to the C schedule properties were not binding on the 1st defendant and the plaint C schedule properties, that the 1st defendant Pathumma was not a willing and intelligent party to the execution of the same, that she would not have been a party to it had she known that the terms and conditions of Ext. A were not similar to those of the document which she was supposed to be renewing, that she was a Pardanashin lady who had no independent advice in the execution of Ext. A document, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any relief on the basis of Ext. A. The plaintiff's claim for paravasi was disallowed. Paddy and millet were allowed to be valued at Rs. 1-4-0 per para. The sum of Rs. 846-1-0 sent by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff was allowed to be appropriated towards the amount decreed to him. The decree was passed consistently with these findings and the parties were directed to suffer their costs. 4. A.S.140 of 1121 had been filed against this decree by the plaintiff in the District Court, Trichur. While that appeal was pending O.S. 307 of 1119 was taken up by the Munsiff's Court and decreed basing its conclusion on the judgment in O.S.478 of 1118. The appeal against that decree in the District Court was A.S.147 of 1122. 4. A.S.140 of 1121 had been filed against this decree by the plaintiff in the District Court, Trichur. While that appeal was pending O.S. 307 of 1119 was taken up by the Munsiff's Court and decreed basing its conclusion on the judgment in O.S.478 of 1118. The appeal against that decree in the District Court was A.S.147 of 1122. Both these appeals were heard together by the consent of the parties. The evidence adduced in both the cases was also agreed to be used for the purpose of the two appeals. The main contention related to the validity of Ext. A the Kanom Kychit of 1116. The lower appellate court found that though the defendant Pathumma may be taken to be a Pardanashin lady, she must be deemed to have accepted that document was valid and binding on her. Both the appeals were therefore allowed resulting in the dismissal of Pathumma's suit O.S. 307 of 1119. Pathumma was directed to pay the cost of the opponent in both the courts. Pathumma has therefore come up in appeal. Both the appeals were therefore heard together by us. 5. The courts below have now found that Pathumma is a Pardanashin lady. At the time when she had executed the Kanom Kychit of 1116, i.e. Ext. A in O.S. 478 of 1118, her husband was in jail and that her brothers were looking after her affairs. The husband was in jail from Kumbhom 1115 till Meenom 1117. Though Pathumma had a case that her brothers were not well disposed of towards her, she has as D.W.1 in O.S. 478 of 1118 admitted that after the criminal case against her husband was started her brothers were looking after her affairs, that they were conducting the criminal case against her husband though that ended in a conviction, and that till the husband was set free, the brothers were on cordial terms with her. Her husband Mohammad had also a Kariyasthan who was working for him for nearly 25 years. He had been examined in O.S. 478 if 1118 as D.W. 4 and as P.W. 3 in O.S. 307 of 1119. Though the husband was in jail, she had dependable persons from whom she could take advice. She was not therefore in a completely helpless situation as was sought to be made out in both the cases. 6. He had been examined in O.S. 478 if 1118 as D.W. 4 and as P.W. 3 in O.S. 307 of 1119. Though the husband was in jail, she had dependable persons from whom she could take advice. She was not therefore in a completely helpless situation as was sought to be made out in both the cases. 6. The transactions with Pardanashin women are scrutinised by the courts to see whether there is good faith of the transactions between such women and the third parties. Though there is no codified law, yet the decided cases have considered the question and laid down certain wise rules for guidance. Those rules are laid down, as held in 34 Cochin Law Reports 690, for the protection of Pardanashin ladies. They are rules of guidance rather than of law and that their application must depend on the facts of each case. Such rules were considered and commented upon by Sirkar in his Commentary on the Evidence Act under S.111 where there was a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stood to the other in a position of active confidence. The learned author had considered all the decided cases on the subject in the Indian Dominion and summarised the law as follows at pages 862 and 863 of the 8th Edition of his book. "The result of these decisions appears to be that in the case of deeds and powers executed by pardanashin women, (Hindu or Mohamedan), it is requisite that those who rely upon them should satisfy the court that they had been explained to and fully understood by those who executed them. The court should be careful to see that deeds taken from Pardanashin women have been fairly taken and that the party executing them has been a free agent and has been duly informed of what she was about to do. The court when dealing with a deed alleged to have been executed by a Pardanashin woman, must before it gives effect to it, satisfy itself upon the evidence. The court when dealing with a deed alleged to have been executed by a Pardanashin woman, must before it gives effect to it, satisfy itself upon the evidence. (1) that she is really a Pardanashin woman who lives in complete seclusion and has little or no commerce with the outside world; (2) that the deed was actually executed by her or by some person duly authorised by her with a full understanding of what she was about to do; (3) that she had full knowledge of and understood the nature and effect of all the transaction into which she is said to have entered; a mere reading or translation is not sufficient. The disposition must be substantially understood and nothing must be concealed and it must be found that she had sufficient intelligence to understand the important and relevant matters, though there may not be 'a clear understanding of each detail of a matter which may be greatly involved in legal technicalities'; (4) that she had independent and disinterested advice in the matter; but independant advice is not in itself essential. After all, the advice, if given might have been bad advice, or she might have disregarded it. Independent advice is not the only way in which the presumption of undue influence can be rebutted; (5) that she understood the whole document. If it is found that she was not aware of or did not understand a part of the transaction, the document must fail as a whole." 7. The principles thus summarised fall broadly into two groups, viz., (i) cases where the person who seeks to hold the lady to the terms of her deed is one who stood towards her in a fiduciary character or in some relational of personal confidence, and, (ii) cases where the person was an absolute stranger and dealt with her at arm's length. In the former class of cases the court will act with great caution and will presume confidence put and influence exerted; in the latter class of cases the court will require the confidence and influence to be proved intrinsically. In all these cases the fairness of the bargain is the crucial test. Bearing these principles in mind it is necessary to examine the transaction Ext. A (in O.S. 478 of 1118) in question. 8. Ext. A is the renewal of Ext. J dated 27.10.1096. In all these cases the fairness of the bargain is the crucial test. Bearing these principles in mind it is necessary to examine the transaction Ext. A (in O.S. 478 of 1118) in question. 8. Ext. A is the renewal of Ext. J dated 27.10.1096. The additional conditions that are included in Ext. A are that the tenant must pay Kuttikanom to the extent of one-fourth of the value of wild trees when cut and removed and that certain perquisites are to be given at the time of Aradiyanthiram in the jenmi's Mana. Towards the close of the document there was also a statement that the capacity of the Para by which Michavarom had to be measured was 11 Edangalies according to the standard measure. After the Tenancy Act XV of 1113, it became necessary to show in the renewal kanom deeds all the amount which the tenant had to pay to the Jenmi and so in the renewal deeds executed thereafter the customary dues which were being paid without any specific mention in the document but which were paid in accordance with the prevailing custom used to be mentioned specifically in the renewals. The plaint C schedule properties in O.S. 478 of 1118 which were schedule in the Plaint in O.S. 307 of 1119 belonged to one Unniyan. In 1074 the Kanom deed Ext. F for the Parampa portion of the properties and Ext. E for the Nilam were taken from the Mana. Unniyan had two sons Moyitheen and Mohammad. Mohammad got Moyitheen's right in the properties under Ext. G. Mohammad then attorned it to the Jenmi regarding the Parampa portion under Ext. J dated 27.10.1096. It provided for the Pormpadu to the Jenmi. The Michavarom agreed was 15 paras 5 Edangalies of paddy according to the para in the Mana which was equivalent to RWL"Ls oO}hkr. Rs. 6 - 3 As. 11 pies had also been provided for the payment of Sirkar tax. Ext. H was a Kychit in regard to the Nilam. This Nilam by subsequent assignment vested in 1st defendant Pathumma. All the heirs of Exts. F and G properties sold to Pathumma the Parampa portion except the Kudiyirippu. That document was Ext. VII dated 13.8.1113. In this document the demise of 1074 alone had been mentioned. Ext. H was a Kychit in regard to the Nilam. This Nilam by subsequent assignment vested in 1st defendant Pathumma. All the heirs of Exts. F and G properties sold to Pathumma the Parampa portion except the Kudiyirippu. That document was Ext. VII dated 13.8.1113. In this document the demise of 1074 alone had been mentioned. Since the document of 1096 had not been mentioned in the sale deed in favour of Pathumma there was the necessity to regularise the document in her favour. So on 3.6.1116 Ext. K sale deed was again taken by Pathumma from the said Mohammad and his mother in respect of the Parampa portion in this property. Damodaran Nair who was the Kariyasthan of Pathumma's husband was an attestor to the same. The same day Pathumma sold two acres and 40 cents out of Ext. K property back to Mohammad and his mother under Ext. XVIII. Pathumma's brother Mohideen Kutty was an identifying witness to this document. After obtaining Ext. XVIII, Mohammad and his mother sold a portion of that property to Mohammad's brother's children. Ext. XVIII vendees had also the same day executed Ext. X Kychit to the Jenmi the plaintiff in O.S. 478 of 1118 agreeing to pay Michavarom, Aradiyanthiram and Kuttikkanam. Ext. VIII vendee also executed Ext. IX Kychit the same day to the Jenmi embodying the identical terms. It was after regularising the title deed relating to the C schedule properties in O.S. 478 of 1118 that Ext. A Kanom Kychit was executed by Pathumma to the plaintiff. The documents Exts. K, VIII, XVIII, IX, X and A were those marked in O.S. 478 of 1118. Pathumma had no case that the sale deed Ext. XVIII executed by her for a portion of the property which she got under Ext. K was in any way vitiated because of want of independent advice. The six documents mentioned above were executed on the same day and it was seen that at least two of the brothers of Pathumma and her husband's devoted Kariyasthan were taking active part in getting the same executed and registered. It was also seen that on the same day Mohideen Kutty one of Pathumma's brothers had gone to the jail where Pathumma's husband was incarcerated and obtained an endorsement on Ext. II (O.S. 307 of 1119) hypothecation bond in his favour. It was also seen that on the same day Mohideen Kutty one of Pathumma's brothers had gone to the jail where Pathumma's husband was incarcerated and obtained an endorsement on Ext. II (O.S. 307 of 1119) hypothecation bond in his favour. It was stated there that the money due under that document was paid to Moideen Kutty and that he was satisfied with the same. Mohammad's signature was attested by the District Magistrate that day. Pathumma's brother had therefore met her husband that day and the plaintiff's suggestion that Ext. A also was executed after consultation with Pathumma's husband was highly probable. In the written statement Pathumma had admitted that Ext. A had been executed by her but that it was done at the instance of her brothers who were acting in collusion with the plaintiff. Even according to her, the brothers knew the contents of the document and since it was seen that these brothers were managing her affairs she must have got herself acquainted with the terms in the documents. D.W.1 in O.S. 307 of 1119 was the Sub-Registrar who registered this document at Pathumma's residence. He stated that he had read out the whole document to Pathumma and obtained her consent to the execution and registration. Though by the mere reading out of the document the woman might not have understood the full significance of the terms in it, it could not be said that Pathumma was a fool. Her testimony in O.S. 478 of 1118 was read out to us and it did not appear that she was weak in intellect or incapable of understanding the matters like this. At any rate she had no case that she knew nothing about Ext. K sale deed (in O.S. 478 of 1118) taken by her or Ext. XVIII sale deed for a portion of that property executed by her. 9. A very serious objection was raised to the provision for payment of Kuttikanom and Aradiyanthiram. In 1103 the plaint C schedule properties and B Schedule properties were with the previous registry holders. On 6.5.1103 the registry holder had paid money to this Jenmi towards what is called Muthalalan Kooru which is the same as Kuttikanom when he cut down trees for sale. Similarly he had paid the "Muthalalan Kooru" (oOfsLtCWPrV) in 1103 for the trees cut down from the B schedule properties. Ext. On 6.5.1103 the registry holder had paid money to this Jenmi towards what is called Muthalalan Kooru which is the same as Kuttikanom when he cut down trees for sale. Similarly he had paid the "Muthalalan Kooru" (oOfsLtCWPrV) in 1103 for the trees cut down from the B schedule properties. Ext. XV was the counterfoil receipt given for the same. These payments were entered in the accounts of the plaintiff's Mana. Ext. XXX on the due dates. Ext. XVI stood in the name of Unniyan Mohammad the Kanomdar under Ext. J of 1095. It was for the plaint C schedule properties. Ext. XV also was for B schedule properties. It was in the name of Koyavu Ismail the previous registry holder. After Pathumma got the disputed property in 1113, she had also given Kuttikanom to the Mana. Ext. O was the receipt for the same. The documents now mentioned are those marked in O.S. 307 of 1119. It is true that Ext. O is now impeached by Pathumma and she wants in O.S. 307 of 1119 a refund of that amount. Ext. O was on 31.12.1115 and her claim to get a refund of that amount was barred by limitation when she filed O.S. 307 of 1119. She remained quiet over Ext. O for a long time and O.S. 307 of 1119 was filed only as a counter-blast to Jenmi's suit O.S. 478 of 1118. Even after the date of Ext. A, Kuttikanom had been paid to the jenmi. Ext. Q in O.S. 307 of 1119 was a receipt passed to Pathumma by the Jenmi. This Ext. Q was also impeached by Pathumma in O.S. 307 of 1119. But Exts. O and Q in O.S. 307 of 1119 were accepted by Pathumma without any protest till the Jenmi's suit was filed in 1118. It could also be seen that pursuant to the direction in Ext. A, Michavarom due had been paid in 1117 by Pathumma. Ext. T dated 30.12.1117 in O.S. 478 of 1118 was the counterfoil of the receipt for the same. Ext. S account filed in O.S. 478 of 1118 contained an entry relating to Ext. T amount at page 108. The Sirkar tax which the tenant had to pay to the Jenmi was also paid and that was evident from Exts. XVII and XXII of O.S. 307 of 1119. Ext. Ext. S account filed in O.S. 478 of 1118 contained an entry relating to Ext. T amount at page 108. The Sirkar tax which the tenant had to pay to the Jenmi was also paid and that was evident from Exts. XVII and XXII of O.S. 307 of 1119. Ext. XVIII of O.S. 307 of 1119 was a Kychit by a stranger to this Jenmi on 32.12.1116. That too also contained terms identical with those in Ext. A of O.S. 478 of 1118. This Ext. XVIII was the renewal of a previous document. Ext. XXIII dated 20.1.1096 contained terms similar to those in Ext. J of O.S. 478 of 1118. Ext. XVIII tenant sold this property to one Yusuff on 10.1.1119 under Ext. XIX and from that Yusuff this Pathumma took an assignment on 29.1.1121. Ext. XX in O.S. 307 of 1119 was that document. This conduct of Pathumma before and after the execution of Ext. A of O.S. 478 of 1118 would show that there was nothing done by the Jenmi to over reach here. There was nothing inserted in the document which was unfair or which Pathumma as tenant was not liable to pay. These circumstances relating to Pathumma's conduct before and after the execution of the Kanom Kychit Ext. A of O.S. 478 of 1118 coupled with the silence relating to Exts. K and XVIII of O.S. 478 of 1118 taken and executed by Pathumma on the same date on which Ext. A ws executed by her, would show that she executed Ext. A after knowing fully well the contents of the document and the implications contained therein. 10. Pathumma's husband and the plaintiff in O.S. 478 of 1118 were moving in cordial terms and after his return from jail he had borrowed some money from the Mana on a promissory note. The payments under Ext. T of O.S. 478 of 1118 and Exts. XVII and XXII of O.S. 307 of 1119 of the Michavaram and Sirkar tax as mentioned in Ext. A were after the husband was released from jail. There was therefore no dispute as to the liability under the document. The money borrowed under the promissory note from the Mana was not returned and so a suit was taken and attachment before judgment of the husband's property was obtained by the Mana. A were after the husband was released from jail. There was therefore no dispute as to the liability under the document. The money borrowed under the promissory note from the Mana was not returned and so a suit was taken and attachment before judgment of the husband's property was obtained by the Mana. It was only after this that they fell out and then he had filed the case taking advantage of the position of his wife as a Pardanashin lady. We do not think that there are any circumstances to invalidate Ext. A of O.S. 478 of 1118 which is the same as Ext. I in O.S. 307 of 1119. We agree with the learned judge in holding that Ext. A is a valid document and is not liable to be set aside. 11. An argument was advanced about the Paravassi mentioned in Ext. A. In Ext. J the Michavarom provided was 15 paras 5 Edangalies. It was reduced to 14 paras and 61/2 Edangalies in Ext. A. Taking the capacity of a Para to be 11 standard Edangalies, this Michavarom of 14 paras and 61/2 Edangalies would come to 16 Paras 1 Edangali and 3 Meesams according to the standard measure. It was this quantity that was measured out to the Mana in 1117 for which the receipt the counterfoil of which is Ext. T of O.S. 478 of 1118 was issued. The Sirkar tax also was shown at a low figure in Ext. A and Exts. XVII and XXII in O.S. 307 of 1119 dealt with already would show that it was this identical amount that Pathumma paid towards the same. This capacity of the Para is mentioned in all the documents executed by the Jenmi after 1113 and we do not think that there is any substance in this contention as well. We therefore confirm the decree of the lower court and dismiss both the appeals with costs. Dismissed.