JUDGMENT R.L. KHURANA, J.- This regular second appeal has been directed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.1990 of the learned District Judge, Mandi, camp at Kullu, reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1989 of the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Kullu. 2. The pedigree table, showing the relationship of the parties is as under:— Dola Ram, son (plaintiff) Smt. Dugli wd/o Nathu Khub Ram, son (Defendant No. 5) Smt. Izi, daughter (Defendant No. 6) i Smt. Man Dassi, daughter Piare Ram I Tabe Ram Cham; r n an Lai Kaula F (Defendant No. 7) tarn (Defe ndants No. 1 to 4) Briefly, the facts of the present case may be stated thus. Smt. Dugli owned about 2-16-10 Bighas of land in Phati Hallan, Kothi Naggar, Tehsil and District Kullu. She, being an old, rustic and illiterate widow, during her life time used to live with her two sons, namely; the plaintiff and defendant No. 5, by rotation for a period of two months. It was her desire that her landed property should be inherited by her two sons in equal shares and as such was interested in executing a will in their favour. 3. In the month of March 1988 when Smt. Dugli was living with defendant No.5, she was taken ill. She was, therefore, brought to Kullu by defendant No. 5 for medical treatment. At Kullu, defendant No. 5 asked her about the making of the Will in favour of her two sons. On her consent, defendant No. 5 got some document executed from her by representing the same to be a Will in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 5 in equal shares. The said document was never read over and explained to her. Three four days after the execution of the said document, Smt. Dugli went to live with the plaintiff, when she disclosed to him about the Will having been got executed from her by defendant No. 5. The plaintiff then deputed his son to obtain certified copy of the document. On the receipt of such copy, it came to be known that the defendant No. 5 by exercising fraud and misrepresentation had got a gift deed executed from Smt. Dugli in favour of his sons, defendants No. 1 to 4. 4. The plaintiff then deputed his son to obtain certified copy of the document. On the receipt of such copy, it came to be known that the defendant No. 5 by exercising fraud and misrepresentation had got a gift deed executed from Smt. Dugli in favour of his sons, defendants No. 1 to 4. 4. On coming to know about the fraud practised upon her by defendant No, 5, Smt. Dugli filed a suit for declaration that the gift deed dated 7.4.1988 was illegal, null and void having been got executed by fraud and misrepresentation. She also prayed for permanent injunction for restraining defendants 1 to 5 from interfering with her ownership and possession qua the land subject-matter of the gift. 5. The suit was resisted and contested by defendants 1 to 5. They pleaded that Smt, Dugli was residing with them through out and was being looked after and maintained by them. It was further pleaded that she out of her own free will and consent had executed the gift in favour of defendants 1 to 4 and got the deed registered. The donees were also placed into possession of the land subject-matter of the gift. No fraud or misrepresentation was practised. The defendants further pleaded that on coming to know about the execution of the gift, the plaintiff had forcibly taken Smt. Dugli away to his house and pressurised her to file the suit. 6. Smt. Dugli died during the pendency of the suit. The name of the present plaintiff Dola Ram, thereafter came to be substituted as plaintiff. 7. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.1989. It was held that the gift dated 7.4.1988 was null and void and not binding on the rights of the deceased Smt. Dugli since the same was the result of fraud and misrepresentation. On appeal preferred by defendants 1 to 5, the learned District Judge vide the impugned judgment and decree reversed the findings of the learned trial Court. The gift dated 7.4.1988 was held to be valid. As a result, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. At the very outset, it may be stated that the findings of the learned District Judge are bad and as such cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 8. Admittedly, the deceased Smt. Dugli Devi, was an old, rustic, illiterate widow. As a result, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. At the very outset, it may be stated that the findings of the learned District Judge are bad and as such cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 8. Admittedly, the deceased Smt. Dugli Devi, was an old, rustic, illiterate widow. The Apex Court in Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai and others (AIR 1963 SC 1203), has held that in India, pardanashin ladies have been given a special protection in view of social condition of the times; they are presumed to have an imperfect knowledge of the world, as, by pardah system they are practically excluded from social intercourse and communion with the outside world. While dealing with the question of the scope and extent of protection available to such pardanashin ladies, it was held that:— "As regards documents taken from pardanashin women, the Court has to ascertain that the party executing them has been a free agent and duly informed of what she was about. The reason for the rule is that the ordinary presumption that a person understands the document to which he has affixed his name does not apply in the case of a pardanashin woman. The burden of proof shall always rest upon the person who seeks to sustain a transaction entered into with a pardanashin lady to establish that the said document was entered into by her after clearly understanding the nature of the transaction. It should be established that it was not her physical act but also her mental act. The burden can be discharged not only by proving that the document was explained to her and that she understood it but also by other evidence, direct and circumstantial... The rule evolved for the protection of pardanashin ladies should not be confused with other doctrine such as fraud, duress and actual undue influence, which apply to all persons whether they be pardanashin ladies or not." 9. The protection available in the case of a pardanashin lady is also available to an old, illiterate and village rustic lady 10. The rule evolved for the protection of pardanashin ladies should not be confused with other doctrine such as fraud, duress and actual undue influence, which apply to all persons whether they be pardanashin ladies or not." 9. The protection available in the case of a pardanashin lady is also available to an old, illiterate and village rustic lady 10. The High Court of Allahabad in Ashok Kumar and another v. Gaon Sabha, Ratauli and others (AIR 1981 All 222), has held that: "It is not merely by reason of pardah itself that the Saw throws its protection around a pardanashin lady but by reason of those disabilities to which the life of a section of people living In seclusion gives rise to the disabilities and with which a pardanashin Sady suffers. Thus the protection necessarily arises from the causes such as old age, infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy, mental deficiency, in experience and dependence upon others..," 11. In Kartari v Kewal Krishan and others (AIR 1972 HP 117), it has been held by this Court that an illiterate and ignorant woman stands on the same footing as a pardanashin lady and while dealing with a case of undue influence over such a lady, the onus should be placed on the person, who was in a position to dominate her will to show that he did not unduly influence the will of such a lady. In the said case, the facts of the case were that the sole daughter of a widowed woman of advanced age had deserted her and her collaterals got a gift deed in their favour. A leading part was taken by such collaterals in the execution of the gift. It was held that the gift was the result of undue influence. 12. In the present case, the defendants have not been able to discharge the onus placed upon them to show that the gift Ex. DW 2/A is not vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. 13. Ex. DW-2/A was scribed by Naranjan Dass Mahant, Deed Writer, Kullu. S/Shri Diwan Chand and Gagan Singh Negi the two Advocates of Kullu are the marginal witnesses thereof. 14. In order to prove the execution of gift by the deceased Smt. Dugli Devi, the defendants have examined the scribe Naranjan Dass as DW 2 and one of the marginal witnesses Shri Diwan Chand Advocate as DW 3. S/Shri Diwan Chand and Gagan Singh Negi the two Advocates of Kullu are the marginal witnesses thereof. 14. In order to prove the execution of gift by the deceased Smt. Dugli Devi, the defendants have examined the scribe Naranjan Dass as DW 2 and one of the marginal witnesses Shri Diwan Chand Advocate as DW 3. The scribe admittedly did not know the deceased Smt. Dugli Devi. He could not state as to who brought her to him. Therefore, none had identified the lady before him as Smt. Dugli Devi. Insofar as DW 2 Diwan Chand is concerned, though he claimed that his family is having social dealings with the family of Smt. Dugli Devi since the time of their fore-fathers, he has categorically admitted that he had at no time visited the house of either the plaintiff for the defendants. He also admitted that he had seen Smt. Dugli Devi for the first time in his life time on the day of execution of the gift deed. He also could not state as to who had brought Smt. Dugli to him. He has stated that at that time Smt. Dugli was accompanied by defendants 1 to 4. 15. Ex. DW 2/A is shown to have been presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration on the same day, that is, 7.4.1988. The endorsement made by the office of the Sub-Registrar shows that Smt. Dugli Devi was identified by S/Shri Diwan Chand and Gagan Singh, Advocates, the two marginal witnesses. 16. Though Ex. DW-2/A is alleged to be a gift deed, the endorsement by the office of Sub-Registrar goes to show that the document purported to have been presented by Smt. Dugli Devi for the purpose of registration was a "sale-deed". The endorsement made is to the effect that the sale deed was presented on 7.4.1988 for registration by Smt. Dugli Devi and that the contents of such sale deed were read over and explained to the vendor who had admitted the contents thereof. 17. The mere fact that the alleged gift deed Ex. DW-2/A was presented before the Sub-Registrar as a sale deed, shows that the document presented was treated by the office of the Sub-Registrar in a casual manner and the Sub-Registrar had appended his signatures thereto only in a routine manner. The document Ex. 17. The mere fact that the alleged gift deed Ex. DW-2/A was presented before the Sub-Registrar as a sale deed, shows that the document presented was treated by the office of the Sub-Registrar in a casual manner and the Sub-Registrar had appended his signatures thereto only in a routine manner. The document Ex. DW-2/A does not appear to have been read over and explained to the deceased Smt. Dugli Devi. 18. A Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Kimtu v, Smt. Rama Dogra and others (1997 (2) Sim. LC. 409) has held:— "...In case of a person who is illiterate or who is not in a position to read the contents of a document, the contract cannot be imposed upon him simply because he had endorsed his signatures thereon unless further it is proved that he did that after under standing the contents of the same. In other words, the rule of law is that pen must go with the mind and unless both the elements are present, it cannot be said that the document is his." 19. In the present case, as pointed out above, the defendants have not been able to prove that the deceased Smt. Dugli Devi had appended her thumb-impression on Ex. DW-2/A after fully understanding the contents thereof. Therefore Ex. DW-2/A cannot be said to be a valid gift. 20. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 17.11.1990 of the learned District Judge are set aside and that of the learned trial Court dated 27.11.1989 restored. No orders as to costs. Appeal allowed.