JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Banerji, J. This appeal is directed against the dismissal of the plaintiff/appellants' suit for declaration that the deed of gift by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant/respondent, is void and inoperative and for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in the year 1986 and on transfer of the said suit in the Court of First Additional Munsif at Alipore, the suit was numbered as Title Suit No. 32 of 1989 in which the prayers were for declaration of title of the plaintiff No.1 in respect of RS. Plots Nos. 377 and 378 as described in Schedule A to the plaint and for recovery of possession of R.S. Plot No. 378 as described in Schedule B to the plaint, on eviction of the defendant/respondent therefrom. The further prayer was for a declaration that the deed of gift dated 6.9.1977 executed by the widowed mother of the plaintiff No. 1 in favour of the defendant is void, inoperative and that the same is not binding upon the plaintiffs. 3. The plaintiffs' case is as follows:- Kiranbala Das Chowdhury (since deceased), the mother of the plaintiff No.1 was the owner of .04 decimal of land appertaining to C.S. Plot Nos. 350 and 351 of C.S. Khatian No. 126 corresponding to R.S. Plot Nos. 377 and 378 of R.S. Khatian No. 17 of Mouja-Santoshpur, P.S.-Kasba as described in Schedule A to the plaint. Taking advantage of good relation with the said Kiranbala Das Chowdhury, the defendant succeeded in getting the said two plots and plot No. 379 transferred in his name falsely representing Kiranbala that the deed executed was one of a power of attorney by Kiranbala in favour of the defendant. Subsequently, Kiranbala learnt that the deed which was actually executed in favour of the defendant was a deed gift obtained fraudulently on the pretext of getting power of attorney. Obtaining a certified copy of the said deed it was found by her that the same was not a power of attorney. Consequently Kiranbala executed a deed of cancellation on 8.12.1978 and sold the Plot No. 377 to the proforma plaintiff, Nityananda Dhar on 29.1.1981 and the latter got possession thereof. The defendant, however, has been possessing the other plot viz. Consequently Kiranbala executed a deed of cancellation on 8.12.1978 and sold the Plot No. 377 to the proforma plaintiff, Nityananda Dhar on 29.1.1981 and the latter got possession thereof. The defendant, however, has been possessing the other plot viz. Plot No. 378 illegally and consequently the plaintiffs in their suit prayed for a declaration that the deed of gift dated 6.9.1977 was void, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs with further prayers that the plaintiffs were the absolute owners in respect of the property as described in Schedule A to the plaint and also prayed for recovery of khas possession in respect of the B Schedule property viz., RS. Plot No. 378 as described in Schedule to the plaint. 4. It is the case of the defendant that the deed of gift has been duly executed and acted upon and that Kiranbala had no authority to sell Plot No. 377 to the proforma plaintiff, Nityananda Dhar and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The learned Munsif after recording the evidence decided only issue No.1 which relates to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation and did not record any findings on the other issues framed in the trial Court. The learned Munsif held that the suit was barred by limitation as the same was instituted more than three years after Kiranbala learnt about the deed of gift on 24.1.1978. The suit was filed on 1.8.1986 i.e. about eight years after she learnt about the deed of gift on 24.1.1978. 5. The learned Munsif did not decide the other issues. The First Appellate Court decided all the issues including the issue on limitation and confirmed the finding of the learned Munsif on issue No. 1. 6. The present suit is for declaration of title and recovery of possession and not a suit for declaration simpliciter of the plaintiffs title. The limitation of the present suit so far as it relates to plot No. 378 is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as the period of limitation for possession of immovable property based on title is twelve years. Therefore, both the courts below erred in holding that the suit is barred by limitation. The limitation of the present suit so far as it relates to plot No. 378 is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as the period of limitation for possession of immovable property based on title is twelve years. Therefore, both the courts below erred in holding that the suit is barred by limitation. The finding on the issue of limitation by both the Courts, is set aside and it is held that the suit is not barred by limitation so far as it relates to plot No. 378. 7. The First Appellate Court held that Kiranbala had been identified before the District Sub-Registrar, Alipore on 8.2.1978 by her daughter, Puspa Das Chowdhury. She also identified Kiranbala before the District Registrar on 8.12.1978 when Kiranbala executed the deed of cancellation. The First Appellate Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the deed of gift was obtained by practising fraud upon Kiranbala. Admittedly Kiranbala was an illiterate, pardanashin lady. Where such a lady executes a deed of gift of immovable property in favour of a stranger, such a transaction cannot be said to have been validly made unless the execution was conscious and intelligent with full knowledge of the nature and the contents of the disputed document. In support Mr. Basu refers to the following decisions :- 1. 97 CWN 495 (Amiruddin Ali @Amiruddin Mondal vs. Kali Bala Bhunia), 2. AIR 1986 Orissa 53 (Narayan Mishra & Ors. vs. Champa Dibya (dead) & Ors.), 3. AIR 1963 SC 1203 (Mst. Kharbuja Kuer vs. Jangbahadur Rai & Ors.), 4. AIR 1994 Orissa 111 (Kuma Dei vs. Md. Abdul Latif), 5. AIR 1994 Orissa 113 (Sri Kishore Ray Thakur Bije vs. Smt. Basanti Kumar Das & Ors.). 8. In 97 CWN 495 (supra) it has been held that in a suit for declaration that the plaintiff/respondent was persuaded to execute a deed of sale on the misrepresentation that it was a power of attorney was decreed concurrently. In the second appeal it was urged that the onus of proof was wrongly placed on the defendant/appellants. The concurrent findings of the Court below were that the disputed documents were not read over and explained to the respondents and that it was not her conscious and intelligent execution with full knowledge of the nature and contents of the disputed document upon consideration of the entire evidence-on-record. The concurrent findings of the Court below were that the disputed documents were not read over and explained to the respondents and that it was not her conscious and intelligent execution with full knowledge of the nature and contents of the disputed document upon consideration of the entire evidence-on-record. It was held in the said case that the burden of proof always rests upon the person who seeks to sustain a transaction entered into with a pardanashin lady to prove that the transaction was not only her physical act but also a mental one and that if the document was not conscious and intelligent execution by an illiterate village woman, the same should be treated as void ab initio. 9. Mr. Basu has referred to the decision reported in AIR 1986 Orissa 53 (supra) in support of his contention that the defendant has failed to discharge the onus of proving due execution of the impugned deed of sale by Kiranbala, a pardanashin and illiterate lady as the law protects her by demanding that the burden of proof shall in such cases rest not with those who attack but with those who rely on it and it must be proved affirmatively and conclusively that the deed was not only executed by the grantor but was explained to grantor and that she really understood the •contents of the deed of sale. 10. In AIR 1963 SC 1203 (supra) it was held by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court that in India pardanashin ladies have been given a special protection in view of the social conditions of the times and they are presumed to have an imperfect knowledge of the world, as by the pardah system they are practically excluded from social intercourse and communion with the outside world. It has been held in the said decision that regarding the documents taken from the pardanashin woman, the court has to ascertain that the party executing these 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 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 in such a case 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 and 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. 11. In AIR 1994 Orissa 111 (supra) the impugned document was purported to have been executed by an illiterate lady. The scribe of the deed appeared as the sole witness but did not make any statement that he had read over and explained the contents of the document to the executant lady. No other direct or circumstantial evidence that the executant lady had understood the nature and contents of the agreement could be adduced. In such circumstances it was held that due execution had not been proved and the document was invalid. 12. In the case at hand the scribe has not been examined by the defendant. Nor has the scribe made any statement in the deed to the effect that he had read over and explained the contents of the document to the executant, an illiterate and pardanashin woman. 13. In such circumstances and in the absence of any convincing materialon-record that there was any special cause for making a gift of land to a stranger, the defendant's case of gift of the land to her by the plaintiff, is not believable. 14. 13. In such circumstances and in the absence of any convincing materialon-record that there was any special cause for making a gift of land to a stranger, the defendant's case of gift of the land to her by the plaintiff, is not believable. 14. In AIR 1994 Orissa 113 (supra) it has been observed that the rule evolved for the protection of pardanashin ladies in relation to execution of documents should not be confused with the other doctrines such as fraud, duress and undue influence which apply to all persons whether they be pardanashin ladies or not; but if the plaintiff is an illiterate or pardanashin lady and alleges fraud and fails to establish fraud, yet the defendant must establish the fact that the plaintiff executed the document after the document was read over and explained to her and after she understood the contents thereof and this protection which law affords to a pardanashin or illiterate lady must be borne in mind by the Court. 15. It does not appear from the impugned document that the scribe of the deed explained the contents of the deed to the illiterate, pardanashin lady. Thus, it is found that the plaintiff put her L.T.I. on the impugned deed contents whereof had not been explained to her. The surrounding circumstances also do not suggest that there could be any reason for the plaintiff making a gift of her property to a stranger. 16. Thus, on consideration of the material-on-record and having regard to the fact that the First Appellate Court has failed to consider the special cloak which the law affords for an illiterate, pardanashin woman, the judgment and decree passed by the Court below are set aside. 17. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to get a declaration that the purported deed of gift dated September 6, 1977 in respect of the suit plot Nos. 377, 378 and 379, is void and inoperative and the plaintiff No. 1 do get a decree for recovery of possession of the land and structures on the suit plot No. 378 of R.S. Khatian No. 17 of Mouja-Santoshpur, P.S- Kasba. 18. The appeal is allowed with costs, Decree be drawn up accordingly. 19. Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties without any delay. Appeal allowed with cost.