JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - Defendant is the appellant against an affirming decision in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and injunction in respect of the disputed land measuring Ac.2 .00 1/2 decimals in mauza Pandiakera and Bagipada as per the schedule appended to the plaint. 2. Plaintiffs case in nutshell is that he was the exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. But on account of his old age as he found it difficult to manage the settlement work himself, he decided to authorise the defendant who happens to be his sister's son to look after the settlement operation on his behalf. For that purpose he intended to execute a power-of-attorney in favour of the defendant on 12-8-1972. He came to Sakhigopal and registered the document. The document was scribed by a Deed Writer of the choice of the defendant and plaintiff in good faith executed the same believing it to be a power-of- attorney. On 10-10-1977, when defendant threatened to interfere with the plaintiffs possession, the plaintiff enquired and found that the document executed by him was a sale deed and not a power-of-attorney. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit. 3. The defendant in his written statement resisted the suit on the ground that the settlement operation had taken place long prior to the execution of the deed and, therefore, the plaintiff's case that ha wanted to execute a power-of-attorney is nothing but a myth. It is further contended that to meet the domestic necessity the plaintiff consciously executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant after receiving the consideration from the defendant and the said sale deed was scribed according to the plaintiff's instruction by a Deed Writer with whom the plaintiff had previous acquaintance and plaintiff knew the contents of the same before execution and, therefore, the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant conveyed valid title to him. 4. On these pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed five issues and on considering all the issues together, he came to hold that Ext. A is a document which is neither valid nor binding and the defendant does not acquire any title on the basis of Ext. A and the plaintiff did not execute the document after the document was read over and explained to him and after he knew the contents thereof. A is a document which is neither valid nor binding and the defendant does not acquire any title on the basis of Ext. A and the plaintiff did not execute the document after the document was read over and explained to him and after he knew the contents thereof. With these findings, the Trial Judge having decreed the plaintiff's suit and having restrained the defendant carried the matter in appeal. 5. The lower appellate Court re-considered the entire evidence on record and after analysing the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant came to hold that the evidence of the defendant is not trustworthy. Then on consideration of the other materials on record including the plaintiff's evidence, the lower appellate Court came to hold that the plaintiff was an illiterate man and was very much old and was dependent upon the defendant for the smooth management of his affairs. With regard to the question as to whether the document (Ext. A)was read over and explained to the plaintiff whereafter he executed the same, the lower appellate Court came to hold that there is no cogent evidence Ied by the defendant on that score and, therefore, it could be safely held that the defendant did not derive any title on the basis of the execution of Ext. A. With these conclusions, the lower appellate Court having dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Judge, the present second appeal has been preferred. 6. Mr. Rath appearing for the appellant raises a question of law in assailing the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below to the effect that the plaintiff having alleged fraud and having failed to establish fraud, the plaintiff's suit is bound to fail, inasmuch as it is well-settled position that one who alleges fraud must establish the same. He further urges that the said allegations of fraud not having been established, the burden will never shift to the defendant to further establish the question as to whether the document was read over and explained and the ptaintiff executed the same after understanding the contents thereof. Mr. Rath lastly urges that the lower appellate Court committed a gross error of record in not cosidering the endorsement made on Ext. Mr. Rath lastly urges that the lower appellate Court committed a gross error of record in not cosidering the endorsement made on Ext. A which would unequivocally indicate that the document had been read over and explained to the executant and he executed the same after understanding the contents thereof. 7. Though the contentions raised by the learned counsel prima facie appear to be atractive, but da not sustain a deeper scrutiny. The question as to the onus of proof and burden of proof and how it shifts in case of a document executed by an illiterate or Paradanasin lady was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Kharbuja Kuer Vs. Jangbahadur Rai. The learned Judges relying upon the dictum of the Privy Council in the case of 89 Ind. Cas. 649 (Privy Council), gave a word of caution in the following words : "It is, therefore, manifest that the rule evolved for the protection of pardabnashin ladies shall not be confused with other doctrines, such as fraud, duress and actual undue influence, which apply to all persons whether they be pardahnashin ladies or not." It is too well-settled that the rule evolved for protection of paradanashin ladies equally applies to a document executed by an illiterate person. So far as the document executed by a paradanashin lady or an illiterate person is concerned, the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case after considering the decision of the Privy Council, as referred to above, as well as the decision of the Judicial Committee expressed through Sir George Rankin, in the case of AIR 1940 134 (Privy Council) held as follows : "The burden of proof shall always rest upon the person who seeks to sustain a transaction entered into with a pardahnashin lady to establish that the said document was executed by her after clearly understanding the nature of the transaction. It should be established that it was not only 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." Bearing in mind the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court in Kharbuja Kuer's case (supra) if the contention of Mr. Rath is examined, the same must be held as devoid of any force. Rath is examined, the same must be held as devoid of any force. No doubt, plaintiff has alleged fraud in the matter of. execution of the document in question and failed to establish the same, but notwithstanding the same, plaintiff being admittedly an illiterate person, the defendant must discharge the burden that lay on him to the effect that the document in question was read over and explained to the executant and he executed the same after fully understanding the nature and contents thereof. So far as this question is concerned, the two Courts-of-fact have considered to entire materials on record and have come to the finding that the defendant has utterly failed to discharge that burden. That burden would never shift to the plaintiff merely because plaintiff had alleged fraud and has failed to establish the same. In the aforesaid circumstances, the conclusion of the two Courts below that the document had not been read over and explained to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had executed the same with- out understanding the contents, thereof, cannot be interfered with by this Court in second appeal, 8. So far as the other contention of Mr. Rath is concerned, it is no doubt, true that the lower appellate Court has made some error in not noticing the endorsement made by the scribe in Ext. A. But that error cannot be said to have vitiated the ultimate conclusion or the finding of the Courts below. An endorsement in the sale dead by the scribe to the effect that the document was read over and explained and the executant executed the same cannot tantamount to discharging the burden that lay on the vendee in case of a transaction with an illiterate person, The burden could be discharged by the defendant either by leading evidence, oral and documentary, or by circumstance. The endorsement or the recital in the document cannot be said to be conclusive of the fact which requires proof. In that view of the matter, notwithstanding the error which appears to have been committed by the lower appellate Court in not noticing the endorsement in question, the ultimate conclusion that the document was not read over and explained to the executant before the executant executed the same, remains unassailable and cannot be interfered with. In that view of the matter, notwithstanding the error which appears to have been committed by the lower appellate Court in not noticing the endorsement in question, the ultimate conclusion that the document was not read over and explained to the executant before the executant executed the same, remains unassailable and cannot be interfered with. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any merits in this second appeal, which is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed