Short Note : 1. The plaintiff appellant being a widow intended to adopt the respondent Gangaji S/o Naharji, but Naharji represented to her that she will be maintained and looked after and she therefore should execute a document. On these representations, on 19.2.1963 a sale-deed of agricultural lands including the house was got executed from her. In the sale-deed consideration of Rs. 1,000/- was shown to have been paid but in fact no consideration was paid. According to the plaintiff she was never maintained nor was paid any amount for maintenance and she was turned out of the house. She filed the suit alleging that the sale-deed was without consideration and was brought about by undue influence and on the representation of assurance that she would be maintained. The defence of the respondent was that the sale-deed dated 19.2.1963 was with consideration and the plaintiff had received Rs. 1,000/- as consideration and the execution of the agreement for maintenance was denied. The trial Court found that no consideration was paid and also found that all agreement for maintenance was executed by the defendant-respondent. The trial Court, therefore, decreed the suit, but in appeal the suit was dismissed. 2. In the present case, the plaintiff's case was that the document was without consideration and was brought about on a representation that she will be maintained and the defence of the respondent was that the document was executed after full consideration was paid. It was nobody's case that whole or part of the consideration remains to be paid. The finding arrived at by the trial Court was that the document was without consideration and this finding was not challenged before the lower Appellate Court and is now therefore final. Apparently, therefore, in these circumstances of the case it could not be held that the parties intended the sale-deed to operate as transfer of interest and any part or whole of consideration remained to be paid. The learned Appellate Court it appears assumed a finding which in fact was not there that the agreement Ex.P-5 was executed in lieu of consideration and on that assumption allowed the appeal. But as stated earlier there was no such finding nor any plea to that effect being raised by any of the parties. The learned Appellate Court it appears assumed a finding which in fact was not there that the agreement Ex.P-5 was executed in lieu of consideration and on that assumption allowed the appeal. But as stated earlier there was no such finding nor any plea to that effect being raised by any of the parties. It could not be disputed that if the defendant-respondent wanted to allege that in fact although the document shows consideration cash paid before the execution of the document but in fact the consideration was to be paid in future and for payment of that future consideration the Ex.P-5 document was executed then the burden would lay on the defendant to prove such a case. It is not in dispute that such a plea was not raised by the defendant nor proved. It is also clear that the amendment which was sought by the defendant also was not an amendment to this effect and it was rejected by the lower Appellate Court. In view of this it could not be contended that Ex.P-5 document was a mode of payment of future consideration and in absence of this on the findings as they stand it could not be doubted that there is nothing to infer any intention that the document was to operate as transfer of interest when it was clearly without consideration. Consequently, the lower Appellate Court has committed an error of law in assuming the finding and deciding the case on that assumption. Sukaloo and Another vs. Punau, 1961 JLJ 138 , Jagannath vs. Ramcharan and Others, 1977 (11) WN 444 (MP) referred to. Appeal allowed.