JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, M. - This is an applicant's second appeal against order dated August 11, 1982 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, dismissing appeal No. 188 of 1978-79 Mainpuri confirming order of S.D.O. Mainpuri dated April 20, 1979 dismissing application of Smt. Chiraunja dated April 20, 1971 now represented by her son's widow Smt. Premwati under Section 137-A of Act I of 1951 for cancelling Sanad dated July 13, 1970 on the ground of fraud and intimidation played upon her by opposite party Jagannath to whom sale deed was got executed on May 4, 1972. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It has been argued that neither the trail court nor the lower appellate court have perused the oral evidence on record; that the courts below wrongly placed burden of proof of fraud on the appellate who was an old, infirm, illiterate lady of about 100 years and the burden ought to have been placed on the opposite party. Reliance has been placed on 1965 A.L.J. 1080; that mere contradiction in the application of Chiraunja for refund of money dated February 4, 1960 which was a separate matter was wrongly relied upon for dismissing the application of the applicant. 4. It has been argued in reply that the concurrent findings of fact that no fraud was played upon the applicant is not liable to be interfered with; that the sale deed for consideration was executed and registered before Registrar and only remedy lies for the cancellation of the sale deed; that contradiction in the statement of Chiraunja in her application for refund of money was rightly settled upon. 5. Both the courts below have wrongly placed burden on the appellant Smt. Chiraunja, of proving fraud and intimidation etc. alleged to have been played upon her. She was admittedly about 100 years of age shortsighted and illiterate lady, therefore, the protection given to Parada Nashim lady was equally applicable to her case and the burden on the O.P. for proving that she had acted freely without undue influence intimidation etc. after seeking advice etc. alleged to have been played upon her. She was admittedly about 100 years of age shortsighted and illiterate lady, therefore, the protection given to Parada Nashim lady was equally applicable to her case and the burden on the O.P. for proving that she had acted freely without undue influence intimidation etc. after seeking advice etc. as has been held in Parasnath Rai and others v. Tileshra Kuar 1965 A.L.J. 1080 as follows:- "Obviously it is not by reason of the Pardah itself that the law throws its protection round a Pardahnashin lady but by reason of these disabilities which a life of seclusion lived by a Pardahnashin lady gives rise to, and which are consequently presumed to exist in the case of such a lady. But the disabilities which make the protection necessary may arise form other causes as well. Old age, infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy, mental deficiency, inexperience and development upon others, may be themselves create disabilities that may render the protection equally necessary. If, therefore, it is proved that a woman, although she is not a Pradahnashin nashin lady, suffers from the disabilities to which a Pardahnashin lady is presumed to be subject, the validity and the binding nature of a deed executed by her have to be judged in the light of these very principles which are applied to a deed by a Pardahnashin lady." 6. It is unfortunate that this case was remanded twice but the courts below have not cared to decide the case in a proper manner and even this time neither the trial court nor the appellate court cared to appraise the oral and documentary evidence on record and documentary evidence on record and based their findings only on the statement of Smt. Chiraunja and found minor contradiction in her application for refund of money which was held to be non-judicial in evidence without proper proof. Charanji Jalam was examined once. Smt. Chiraunja was examined twice. Prem Wati was examined once. They were witnesses for the applicant. Jagannath opposite party was examined twice and Behari his witness was examined once. The statements of all these witnesses were not appraised by the courts below. 7. Charanji Jalam was examined once. Smt. Chiraunja was examined twice. Prem Wati was examined once. They were witnesses for the applicant. Jagannath opposite party was examined twice and Behari his witness was examined once. The statements of all these witnesses were not appraised by the courts below. 7. Old Section 137-A and the present Section 137 after deletion of Section 134 to 136 by U.P. Act No. XXXV of 1976 conferred a special forum on revenue courts for the cancellation of declaration of grant of Sanad and against the order passed under the Section first appeal and second appeal are provided and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred but the courts below wrongly treated the proceeding under the section as of summary nature. The proceeding under the section is very important and it is incumbent on the courts below to feel the importance of the proceeding. They should not deal the proceeding in a haphazard way, the proceeding should be decided like a regular suit and all oral and documentary evidence should be considered by both the courts below in arriving at conclusion. 8. It is unfortunate that both the courts below did not appraise all the oral and documentary evidence concerned. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be allowed and the orders passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside and the case needs to be remanded to the trial court for deciding it afresh after appraising all the oral and documentary evidence on record keeping the aforesaid ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view as the applicant was very old infirm illiterate lady and due to her disabilities was entitled to the protection available to the Pardahnashin ladies. 9. In view of the above this appeal is hereby allowed with costs. The orders passed by both the courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for fresh decision according to the aforesaid observations. 10. Let the trial court's record be sent to it at once for expeditious disposal of the case.