JUDGMENT M. Wahajuddin, J. - The appellant, who is son of Mohd. Shayak, filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for succession certificate. It would appear that Kazi Mohammad Sayak left four daughters also as his heirs. The applicant maintained that after the death of Kazi Mohammad Sayak the four daughters, who were impleaded as opposite parties relinquished their shares in the money concerning five National Savings Certificates and one Cash Certificate in favour of their brother, the applicant, so the applicant alone was entitled to have a succession certificate in his favour. The opposite parties disputed that. The court below found that though the deed relied upon as relinquished money deed has been executed by opposite parties the same is without consideration and not enforceable in the court of law. It, therefore, directed that succession certificate be issued in favour of the applicant and opposite parties both. The applicant feeling aggrieved from such order preferred this appeal maintaining that the deed in question which is Ex. 5 is only a deed of surrender for which no consideration is required and it is enforceable in law. It was also urged that the case of the deed being unenforceable for want of consideration was not taken by the opposite parties and the court below has introduced a new case. It was further urged that the succession certificate should have been granted in favour of the applicant alone. 2. Before this Court it is again urged on behalf of the respondents that the deed Ex. 5 was not executed by the opposite parties, namely, daughters of Mohammad Sayak. The court below considered the evidence led by the applicant in support as reliable and it found that the evidence led on behalf of the opposite parties does not inspire confidence. I am pained to observe that the court below has written a sketchy judgment so far as it relates to the execution of the deed. Both sides had examined Experts and without assigning reasons and discussing evidence the court below made an observation as follows : "After carefully examining the statements of the Experts, I find that the opinion of the Experts examined by the applicant is sound and should be believed." This is not a proper way of scrutinising and assessing the evidence. Both sides had examined Experts and without assigning reasons and discussing evidence the court below made an observation as follows : "After carefully examining the statements of the Experts, I find that the opinion of the Experts examined by the applicant is sound and should be believed." This is not a proper way of scrutinising and assessing the evidence. It has become necessary for this Court to consider afresh the direct evidence led by both sides in support of their respective cases. It would appear that on behalf of the applicant apart from him, two more witnesses, namely, Abdul Mughani A.W. 2, the scribe of the document, and Syeed Ahmad, PW 3 who said that the document was executed in their presence, were examined in support. In rebuttal besides the two opposite parties, Smt. Saiyada Khatoon and Smt. Maksooda Khatoon, one Abul Hasan was also examined. Their evidence is to the effect that the deed in question was not executed by the ladies. 3. Two things are very significant and due weight should have been given to the same. Firstly, the deed was without consideration in the sense that nothing was paid to the opposite parties and secondly, that the opposite parties are Pardanashin ladies. In case of Pardanashin ladies the law casts an additional burden upon the person relying upon any document executed by them to show that the ladies fully understood the impacts of the deed and the deed was fully explained to them. Abdul Mughani A.W. 2 has himself admitted that the opposite parties are Pardanashins. As the document purports to have been scribed by Abdul Mughani A.W. 2, the version accounting for his presence assumes importance. He does not belong to the place to which the applicant and his father belonged and resided. Abdul Mag-hani says that he had come in the Pursa that is condolence of Mohammad Sayak. It is noteworthy that Mohd. Sayak died in December. Condolence visit is not deferred for a very long time. Abdul Mughani claims his visit after a lapse of several months in July when the deed was executed. There is also glaring discrepancies as to when Abdul Mughani actually came. It is noteworthy that Mohd. Sayak died in December. Condolence visit is not deferred for a very long time. Abdul Mughani claims his visit after a lapse of several months in July when the deed was executed. There is also glaring discrepancies as to when Abdul Mughani actually came. A.W. 3 Sayeed Ahmad stated that Abdul Mughani came a week prior to the execution of the alleged deed and left back after one week further from the date of its execution, meaning thereby that Abdul Mughani during that visit stayed for two weeks at applicant's place. Applicant A.W. 4 has stated that Abdul Mughani came on 23rd of July and left back on 26th or 27th of July. Abdul Mughani himself, however gave a different version deposing that deed was executed at 6 O' clock in the evening and Abdul Mughani left back on the very next day. 4. A mystery further surrounds the purchase of the Stamp Paper. The applicant's witnesses on facts stated that it was Abdul Hasan, husband of one of the opposite parties who purchased the stamps. Sayeed Ahmad A.W. 3 has given contradictory version concerning Abdul Hasan. At first he stated that husband of any of the daughters were not present. Of course, as a second thought he stated that Abul Hasan and Abdul Asgar were present. Curiously enough the stamp paper upon which the deed is written reveals a different picture and it would be found that actually applicant Kazi Anis Ahmad purchased this stamp paper for the ladies and not Abul Hasan. This would mean that a false statement is being given on this point and this would not be the position unless the execution of the deed is shaky and lacks genuine and due execution. It is noteworthy that the daughters of Mohammad Sayak had come to applicant's place on the death of their father. As Pardanashin ladies, emotionally they will be under the influence of the applicant. In this context the Court will insist upon the strict proof of due and intelligent execution of the deed Ex. 5 which is lacking. As regards Expert's evidence much importance cannot be given to the same when both sides have examined Experts in support of their respective stands. In this context the Court will insist upon the strict proof of due and intelligent execution of the deed Ex. 5 which is lacking. As regards Expert's evidence much importance cannot be given to the same when both sides have examined Experts in support of their respective stands. The direct evidence touching upon the matter has importance, but I find that in view of the aforesaid discrepancies on important points touching the alleged execution of the alleged deed there are grave discrepancies and in view of the same the evidence of the two ladies denying execution of the deed will constitute sufficient rebuttal. When the deed is without any consideration the Court has to naturally approach the matter with an abundant caution and careful scrutiny and on such careful scrutiny I find that due and intelligent execution of the deed is also not proved besides lack of consideration. In view of such finding this appeal will have no force and it is dismissed with costs to respondents.