JUDGMENT Shantanu Kemkar, J. 1. This is a defendants first appeal filed under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 23-2-1999 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Seoni in civil suit No. 5-A/89. 2. The plaintiff/ respondent filed a suit for declaring the sale deed executed by her to be void and not binding on her and for declaration of title and for possession of the suit property. 3. The plaintiff/respondent case as per plaint filed on 29-6-1989 was that she is owner of the land and the house bearing survey No. 177 (new No. 294) and Khasra No. 428 admeasuring 4.78 hectares situated at village Naygaon, Barghat, Tehsil and district Seoni. As she was growing old and weak, it became difficult for her to cultivate and manage the agricultural activities. Two and half years prior to the institution of the suit the appellant No. 3/defendant No. 3 Devi Prasad who was son of her niece came with his family to the plaintiff and started residing with her. He started helping the plaintiff in agricultural activities. After about six months, he convinced the plaintiff that after her death, her other relatives would grab her property and therefore she should execute a Will of her property in his favour. The plaintiff accepted this. 4. On 5-6-1987, the defendant No. 3 took her to Seoni for execution of the Will. Taking advantage of her old age and illiteracy, the defendant No. 3 committed fraud with the plaintiff and in the garb of execution of the Will he got executed a sale deed from plaintiff in favour of his sons defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff came to know about this fraud only a month prior to the filing of the suit when village Kotwar informed her that the name of defendant No. 3 has been recorded in the revenue records. On this, the plaintiff came to Seoni and enquired about factual aspect of the matter and was informed that on 5-6-1987 the document executed was sale deed. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant No. 3 taking advantage of their relationship fraudulently got executed the sale deed from her. At the time of execution of the alleged sale deed the value of land was not less than Rs. 70,000/- and therefore there was no question of selling it for Rs. 30,000/-. 5. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant No. 3 taking advantage of their relationship fraudulently got executed the sale deed from her. At the time of execution of the alleged sale deed the value of land was not less than Rs. 70,000/- and therefore there was no question of selling it for Rs. 30,000/-. 5. As against this, the case of the appellant defendant No. 3 as set out in his written statement was that the plaintiff after receiving the consideration of Rs. 30,000/- had duly executed the sale deed. In pursuance of the registered document of sale deed, the name of the defendant No. 1 and 2 who are his minor sons have also been recorded in the revenue record in the presence and with the consent of the plaintiff. It was denied by the defendant that on the pretext of execution of Will, he got sale deed executed from the plaintiff without payment of price of the property. It was stated that the plaintiff was paid the consideration of Rs. 30,000/- in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter she came to Seoni, where the document writer prepared the sale deed on her instructions. The contents of it were read over to her and thereafter she put her thumb impression in the presence of witnesses. On 23-2-1988 in the mutation proceedings she remained personally present before Revenue Inspector, Barghat before whom she again declared about the execution of sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 and 2 and as such the mutation order was passed. 6. On the basis of the above averments, the trial Court framed seven issues. The plaintiff examined herself as PW-1, Shivgajanand Singh (PW-2), and Lalita Bai as (PW-3). In rebuttal the appellant No. 3/defendant No. 3 examined himself as DW-1, Sawanlal (DW-2) Ramcharan (DW-3) Harikishore (DW-4) and Pannalal (DW-5). The trial Court on the basis of evidence held that since there is no mention as to when the amount mentioned in the sale deed is paid to the plaintiff, there are discrepancies in the evidence of defendants witnesses about the negotiation of price and the witnesses which were present while payment of consideration are different than those who were witnesses to the sale deed proves the plaintiffs case and accordingly, decreed the suit and held the sale deed dated 5-6-1987 Ex. P-2 to be void. 7. P-2 to be void. 7. Heard Shri C. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Perused record. 8. Shri C. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial Court has committed error in holding the registered sale deed has been obtained by fraud. The minor discrepancies in the evidence of the defendant's witnesses which are bound to occur due to passage of time have been given unnecessary importance. The plaintiff was managing her agricultural activities since last 40 years and she being an experienced lady about the transactions of sale as admittedly she sold her properties earlier on four occasions and therefore for the purposes of assessment of her evidence she cannot be equated with Pardanashin or illiterate lady. It has been further submitted that in view of the fact that the document was registered a strong presumption was in favour of the appellant/defendant about the genuineness of the sale deed. 9. On the other hand Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the trial Court and submitted that the appellant taking undue advantage of the relationship, old age and illiteracy of the plaintiff in the garb of execution of Will got sale deed executed from the plaintiff. He further submitted that the plaintiff was an old lady aged about 65 years. She was having only the suit land and house and in such circumstances, it is highly improbable that she will sell out her entire property. 10. Since the plaintiff is an old and illiterate lady, while appreciating the evidence it is to be kept in mind that the ordinary presumption that a person understands the document to which he has affixed his name would not apply in this case because Pardanashin ladies have been given a special protection in view of the social conditions and they are presumed to have imperfect knowledge of the world. In such a case, the burden of proof is not with those who conduct but with those who have been bound to the deed and the proof must go so far as to show affirmatively and conclusively that the deed was not only executed by, but was explained and was really understood by the executor. 11. In the case of Mt. 11. In the case of Mt. Farid-un-nisa v. Mukhtar Ahmad, AIR 1925 PC 204 it has been stated "The mere declaration by the settlor, subsequently made, that she had not understood what she was doing, obviously is not itself conclusive. It must be a question whether, having regard to the proved personality of the settlor, the nature of the settlement, the circumstances under which it was executed, and the whole history of the parties, it is reasonably established that the deed executed was the free and intelligent act of the settlor or not. If the answer is in the affirmative, those relying on the deed have discharged the onus which rests upon them." The Supreme Court in Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai, AIR 1963 SC 1203 has held "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 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. 12. In order to decide the controversy, the evidence led by the parties has to be scanned as per the aforesaid settled legal position. 13. Plaintiff Chandaniabai (PW-1) in her evidence has deposed that defendant No. 3 Devi Prasad is her grand-son. He came to her and told her that since she is growing old and becoming weak, he will assist her in cultivation of her land. On her acceptance, he and member of his family started cultivating her land. After some time defendant No. 3 assured her that he will take care of her during her life and therefore she should execute the Will in his favour. He then took her to Seoni for execution of the Will. At Seoni, without reading over the document to her he got her thumb impression on the document. She deposed that she executed the document under the belief that the same is a Will. She denied of receiving Rs. 30,000/- from the defendants towards consideration of sale and has deposed that the price of the property was much more. At Seoni, without reading over the document to her he got her thumb impression on the document. She deposed that she executed the document under the belief that the same is a Will. She denied of receiving Rs. 30,000/- from the defendants towards consideration of sale and has deposed that the price of the property was much more. In her cross examination, though she has admitted that she sold her other land from time to time to various persons, she denied that she sold this land to the defendant No. 3. She also deposed that she was not taken before the Registrar nor did she agree before the Registrar of accepting Rs. 30,000/- towards the price of the property. 14. Shivgajanand Singh (PW-2) has deposed about the value of the land and as per his evidence the value of the land at the relevant time was about Rs. 70-75,000/-. Lalita Bai (PW-3) have also deposed that the land was valued at Rs. 70,000/- at the relevant time. Thus both these witnesses are about the price of the land at the time of sale deed. These witnesses in their cross examination have admitted that they are not having knowledge about any such sale for this price. 15. Defendant No. 3 Devi Prasad (DW-1) in his evidence has stated that since plaintiff Chandaniabai (PW-1) was interested in selling her house and land he along with Charan (Ramcharan DW-3) and Hira went to the house of Chandaniabai and settled the price at Rs. 30,000/-. After about 8-15 days, he again went to the house of Chandaniabai along with Charan (DW-3) and Hira and paid her the agreed amount of Rs. 30,000/- Chandaniabai told to him that she will execute the sale deed on the next day. On the next day, he went to the house of Chandaniabai where her witnesses Sawanlal and Pannalal were present. All of them along with Chandaniabai went to Seoni. At Seoni, they contacted petition writer Pandit Hari Kishore (DW-4) who drafted the sale deed as instructed by Chandaniabai. The contents of the sale deed were readover to Chandaniabai by Hari Kishore (DW-4). Thereafter he, Pannalal (DW-5) and Sawanlal (DW-2) also signed it. The Registrar asked Chandaniabai as to whether she had received the sale price and on her admitting to have received the amount, the sale deed was registered. The contents of the sale deed were readover to Chandaniabai by Hari Kishore (DW-4). Thereafter he, Pannalal (DW-5) and Sawanlal (DW-2) also signed it. The Registrar asked Chandaniabai as to whether she had received the sale price and on her admitting to have received the amount, the sale deed was registered. After the registration of the sale deed he got possession of the land and house. After about 5-6 months, he submitted the sale deed to Patwari for mutation of land in the name of his sons defendant No. 1 and 2. Tehsildar passed the mutation order in the presence of Chandaniabai after making enquiry from her. The original registry was kept in Almirah. which was lost and he believed that Chandaniabai must have stolen the same. He accordingly filed the certified copy of sale deed as Ex. D-2. About negotiation of sale, in cross-examination he has stated that he used to visit the house of Chandaniabai daily for 5-10 minutes. She expressed her desire to sell her property. At that time, he was alone. After about two months of disclosure of her desire to sell the land, he offered Chandaniabai to purchase her land, at that time he was accompanied with Charan (DW-3) and Hira. Initially she was quoting the price of Rs. 40,000/-, but after negotiation she agreed to sell it for Rs. 30.000/- on which, he assured Chandaniabai to pay the amount within 8-15 days to which she agreed. All these talks took two hours. About payment of Rs. 30.000/- this witness has deposed that he had arranged the amount by selling cow and ornaments of his wife, and also by getting his share of the property from his father. 16. Sawanlal (DW-2) is a witness to the registration of the document. He has deposed that plaintiff Chandaniabai asked him to accompany her for registration of the sale deed. He further deposed that Chandaniabai has told the petition writer that she has sold land of which the document is to be prepared. After preparation of the document it was read over. Chandaniabai put her thumb impression on the same. Thereafter they went before the Registrar before whom also Chandaniabai has stated that she sold the land to the defendants. 17. Ramcharan (DW-3) is witness of payment of consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. After preparation of the document it was read over. Chandaniabai put her thumb impression on the same. Thereafter they went before the Registrar before whom also Chandaniabai has stated that she sold the land to the defendants. 17. Ramcharan (DW-3) is witness of payment of consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. He has deposed that he had accompanied Devi Prasad with Hiralal when they initially talked about the sale of house and land. They agreed for Rs. 30,000/-. According to this witness Chandaniabai told Devi Prasad that she would receive the amount at her house and thereafter she will execute the sale deed. Devi Prasad sought time of 15 days for making the payment. After 15 days, he along with Hiralal and Devi Prasad went to the house of Chandaniabai and Devi Prasad paid Rs. 30,000/- to Chandaniabai. 18. Hari Kishore Sharma (DW-4) is a document writer. He had deposed that he drafted the sale deed as per the instructions of Chandaniabai. He further deposed that he readover the document to the seller, purchaser and all the persons who were present and only thereafter he got signatures on it. Chandaniabai put her thumb impression on the sale deed at portion D to D and E to E. In his cross examination he has deposed that Chandaniabai has told him that she had already received Rs. 30,000/-. 19. Pannalal (DW-5) has deposed that Chandaniabai sent a message on which he went to her house where she informed him that she had sold the land of which registration has to be done and therefore he went along with Devi Prasad, Chandaniabai and Sawanlal to Seoni. 20. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale deed was aged about 63 years of age. She became widow 40 years prior to the execution of the sale deed and for about 40 years she herself was managing her land and worldly activities. During this period, she already had the experience of executing four registered sale deed to different persons. Thus, she was having sufficient experience of such transactions. While going through the evidence of Devi Prasad (DW-1). Sawanlal (DW-2), Hari Kishore (DW-4), I find that all these three witnesses have unequivocally deposed that plaintiff Chandaniabai had knowingly and willingly executed the document Ex. D-2 to be a sale deed. Thus, she was having sufficient experience of such transactions. While going through the evidence of Devi Prasad (DW-1). Sawanlal (DW-2), Hari Kishore (DW-4), I find that all these three witnesses have unequivocally deposed that plaintiff Chandaniabai had knowingly and willingly executed the document Ex. D-2 to be a sale deed. She was readover the sale deed by Hari Kishore (DW-4) and thereafter she put her thumb impression. Devi Prasad (DW-1) and Ramcharan (DW-3) have proved the payment of consideration of Rs. 30,000/- to plaintiff Chandaniabai a day prior to the execution of the sale deed. 21. Document Ex. P-3 is record of mutation of land from plaintiff to defendant No. 1 and 2. It proves that the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 were present before the Revenue Inspector and the Revenue Inspector after due procedure of publication mutated the land on the basis of registered sale deed Ex. P-2 in favour of defendant No. 1 and 2. The presence of plaintiff before the Revenue Inspector is recorded in the document Ex. P-3. The plaintiff's plea that the price of the property was much more than Rs. 30,000/- is not proved by any sale deed executed at the relevant time. 22. The defendant No. 3 has fully discharged his burden by proving the circumstances, payment of consideration of sale and due execution of the sale deed by plaintiff with full knowledge. The sale deed contains that the plaintiff has received Rs. 30,000/- in cash. Mere non-mention of the fact that the amount was paid a day prior to the execution of the sale deed would not vitiate the sale deed. The minor discrepancies about the negotiations in between plaintiff and defendant No. 3 about the price of the land was bound to occur in view of the fact that statements of witnesses were recorded about 11-12 years after the alleged negotiations and the deal. The failure of giving details of currency notes is also not of much importance looking to the relations between the parties and moreover it is also not expected to remember the same after such a long time. The defendant No. 3 has given full details as to how he arranged for the money. Merely because plaintiff has sold her entire property in her old age would not invalidate the transaction which is otherwise found to be genuine and with her consent and knowledge. The defendant No. 3 has given full details as to how he arranged for the money. Merely because plaintiff has sold her entire property in her old age would not invalidate the transaction which is otherwise found to be genuine and with her consent and knowledge. The plaintiff was living as widow since 40 years. She was conveniently managing her affairs. She had experience of selling her property because admittedly she sold her property in parts on four occasions. After six months of execution of the sale deed she also accompanied the defendant No. 3 in the mutation proceedings, in her presence the mutation of the property was recorded by the revenue authority. 23. In view of the overwhelming evidence about the payment of consideration, execution of sale deed with full knowledge to the plaintiff her participation in the mutation proceedings and all other attending circumstances, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court is not sustainable. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside, with costs throughout. Counsel fees as per schedule, if certified.