Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is defendants first appeal filed u/s. 96 of the civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dt. 24. 10. 97 passed by the first Additional District Judge, Shujalpur, Dist. Shajapur in Civil Suit No. 81-A/95. ( 2. ) THE plaintiff/respondent no. 1 filed a suit for declaration and injunction seeking relief to declare the two sale deeds dt. 06. 04. 95 executed by her mother ratankuwarbai in favour of appellant nos. 1 and 2 and to declare Will executed on the same day by her mother in favour of appellant no. 3, to be null and void and not binding on her and to declare her as the sole owner of the suit land. ( 3. ) THE plaintiff/respondent no. 1 case as per the plaint filed on 19. 9. 95 was that the suit land situated at village Dadia Khedi was owned by her father Devisingh and her uncle Mehetabsingh. After the death of her father Devisingh, in December 1961 the suit land of his share was transferred in the name of her mother ratankuwarbai. It is stated by the plaintiff that though name of her mother ratankuwarbai was recorded in the land but she also being legal heir of deceased devisingh was having joint ownership right over the suit land with her mother. It is stated that after the death of her mother on 21. 07. 95 she became the sole owner of the suit land. It was alleged by the first respondent/plaintiff that 3 to 4 months prior to death of her mother Ratankuwarbai she was suffering from Cancer and on account of cancer she died. In order to meet the expenses of her treatment she took Rs. 5,000/-from the appellants/defendant nos. 1,2 and 3. The defendants no. 1,2 and 3 on the pretext of the transaction of loan of Rs. 5,000/- got executed from the deceased Ratankuwarbai the sale deeds dt. 06. 04. 95 without consideration and the Will dt. 06. 04. 95, and got the same registered in the office of Sub-Registrar kala Pipal. She further alleged in the plaint that she being co-owner of the suit property the sale deeds and the Will executed by the deceased Ratankuwarbai are not binding on her. It is her case that taking undue advantage of ill health of ratankuwarbai the defendant nos. 04. 95, and got the same registered in the office of Sub-Registrar kala Pipal. She further alleged in the plaint that she being co-owner of the suit property the sale deeds and the Will executed by the deceased Ratankuwarbai are not binding on her. It is her case that taking undue advantage of ill health of ratankuwarbai the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 without paying consideration got the sale deeds executed in their favour and also got the Will executed from her representing it to be a document for loan of Rs. 5,000/- which she took from the appellants for her treatment. ( 4. ) THE defendants no. 1,2 and 3s case as set out in their written statement was that the plaintiffs mother Ratankuwarbai became sole owner of the land on her husbands death according to the law of succession which was in force at the relevant point of time. It is stated by defendant nos. l, 2 and 3 that the sale deeds were for proper consideration of Rs. 94,500/- which was paid to Ratankuwarbai at her residence prior to the registration of the sale deeds. They denied commission of any fraud by them with Ratankuwarbai. It is also stated that Ratankuwarbai was in their relation and they were taking her care, therefore, she executed a Will in favour of the defendant no. 3. She executed the sale deeds as she was in need of money. The money she received as sale consideration was spent by her in treatment of her ailment of cancer. It was also stated that the plaintiff never cared for her mother and she even did not turn up to look after her during the period of her ailment and also did not attend her last rites. ( 5. ) ON the basis of the above pleadings the Trial Court framed eight issues. The plaintiff examined herself as P. W. 1 and Govind Kuwarbai as P. W. 2. In rebuttal the defendants/appellants examined defendant no. 2 Manoharsingh (D. W. 1),laxmansingh (D. W. 2), Antarsingh (D. W. 3), Dilipsingh (D. W. 4) (wrongly mentioned as D. W. 1 ). The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence held that since devisingh died before 08. 12. 1961 his wife Ratankuwarbai became the sole owner in view of the law prevailing at that time. 2 Manoharsingh (D. W. 1),laxmansingh (D. W. 2), Antarsingh (D. W. 3), Dilipsingh (D. W. 4) (wrongly mentioned as D. W. 1 ). The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence held that since devisingh died before 08. 12. 1961 his wife Ratankuwarbai became the sole owner in view of the law prevailing at that time. As regards the validity of the documents, the Trial Court held that Ratankuwarbai was in a state of depression as she was suffering from cancer and the sale deeds which were executed from her were without consideration. The Court below also held the Will to be not proved. Accordingly it held that the sale deeds and Will executed by the plaintiffs mother ratankuwarbai are not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiffs suit was accordingly decreed by the Trial Court holding the sale deeds and the Will to be null and void. ( 6. ) HEARD Shri P. V. Bhagwat learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Himanshu Joshi and Smt. Usha Chouhan learned counsel for respondent no. 1. Perused the record. ( 7. ) SHRI P. V. Bhagwat learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial Court has committed error in holding that since Ratankuwarbai was suffering from cancer therefore she was under the state of depression. According to him though the Trial Court had recorded a finding that the defendants/appellants were looking after Ratankuwarbai, erred in not giving due weightage to the same as it was a circumstance in favour of the appellants justifying executing of Will in favour of the defendant no. 3. He also contended that by the documentary and oral evidence led on behalf of the appellants it was duly proved by them that the sale deeds were executed for consideration of Rs. 94,500/- which was duly received by the plaintiff and the sale deeds were duly registered before the Sub Registrar. He argued that since Ratankuwarbai was in need of money she sold land for lump sum amount which was utilised by her in her treatment. 94,500/- which was duly received by the plaintiff and the sale deeds were duly registered before the Sub Registrar. He argued that since Ratankuwarbai was in need of money she sold land for lump sum amount which was utilised by her in her treatment. He also argued that from the evidence on record it was duly established that the plaintiff did not perform her obligation as a daughter and never cared for her mother Ratankuwarbai and even did not came to meet her during her period of suffering from ailment, thus according to him the entire conduct of the plaintiff as is clear from the evidence on record justifies the execution of the sale deeds and Will by the deceased ratankuwarbai in favour of the appellants. ( 8. ) ON the other hand it has been contended by learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff that the appellants in the garb of executing the documents of loan transaction of Rs. 5000/- got executed two sale deeds and a Will from ratankuwarbai. According to him the sale deeds executed by the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 from the plaintiff were without consideration and as such the Trial Court has rightly declared the same to be null and void. He also argued that the Will also has rightly been held by the Trial Court to be not proved. ( 9. ) AT the time of execution of the sale deeds and the Will the deceased ratankuwarbai was aged 60 years. Admittedly she was an illiterate lady and was suffering from cancer. In the circumstances while appreciating the evidence it is to be kept in mind that the ordinary presumption that a person understands the documents to which he has affixed his thumb would not apply in this case. The supreme Court in Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1203 has held that 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 entered into 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. 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 documents were explained to her and she understood it but also by other evidence, direct and circumstantial. Shri P. V. Bhagwat learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the Judgment of Supreme Court in case of savithri and Ors. v. Karthyayani Amma and Ors. 2007 AIR SCW 6787 in which the Supreme Court rejected the plea of undue influence in executing the Will by testator a cancer patient living with his sister in favour of sister, her son and grandson who are looking after him holding that the execution of Will is natural. The Supreme Court also held that the plea of coercion of suspicious circumstances in executing the Will has to be proved by the party alleging coercion. ( 10. ) IN order to decide the controversy the evidence led by the parties is to be scanned in terms of this legal position. ( 11. ) PLAINTIFF Hemkuwarbai (P. W. 1) m her deposition has stated that her father devisingh died 35 years ago she was infant child of six months. She stated that 4 to 5 months prior to the death of her mother, by cancer it was known to her mother that she is suffering from cancer. She stated that her mother Ratankuwarbai took loan of Rs. 5000/- from defendant no. 2 Manoharsingh. She also deposed that under the garb of documentation of tilts transaction of Rs. 5000/- appellants no. 1 and 2 got executed the documents of sale deeds and Will from her mother ratankuwarbai. Ratankuwarbai visited Ahmadabad for her treatment with manorsingh and her aunt Govindkuwarbai (P. W. 2 ). They returned after one month from Ahmadabad. She admitted that she never visited her mother after getting knowledge of her being suffering from cancer. In her cross examination she stated that the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are her cousins. Govindkuwarbai (P. W. 2) stated that the plaintiff Hemkuwarbai is her niece. She also deposed that Ratankuwarbai was suffering from cancer and she visited her place of residence at Rajgarh and was worried about her ailment. In her cross examination she stated that the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are her cousins. Govindkuwarbai (P. W. 2) stated that the plaintiff Hemkuwarbai is her niece. She also deposed that Ratankuwarbai was suffering from cancer and she visited her place of residence at Rajgarh and was worried about her ailment. On her consolation she went back to her village and after arranging money for her treatment she along with Manoharsingh came to Rajgarh and thereafter she along with Ratankuwarbai and Manoharsingh visited ahmadabad for treatment of Ratankuwarbai. She stated that only Rs. 5,000/- were spent in her treatment which includes up and down journey fare of all the three persons. ( 12. ) MANOHARSINGH (D. W. 1) in his deposition has stated that plaintiff hemkuwarbai was married at village Lasudia. He stated that he and his brother sumersingh purchased land from Ratankuwarbai for Rs. 94,500/- by two separate sale deeds Ex. D/1 and Ex. D/2 which were registered for Rs. 37,000/- and 57,500/-He stated that the price of the land was given to Ratankuwarbai in the presence of Antarsingh at her residence. He also deposed as to of which denominations the currency notes were paid to the deceased Ratankuwarbai. The amount so paid to her was counted by her. He further stated that since they were taking care of ratankuwarbai she made a Will (Ex. D/3) in favour of Indersingh. It is also stated by him that at the time when the sale deeds Ex. D/1 and D/2 and the Will Ex. D/3 were registered Ratankuwarbai was in good condition. He further deposed that the price of land paid by them for purchase of the land from Ratankuwarbai was spent by Ratankuwarbai for her treatment. He denied the suggestion that at the time when the sale deeds and the Will were executed, deceased Ratankuwarbai was under depression. He also denied that in the garb of preparing documents for the loan transaction of Rs. 5,000/- they got executed the sale deeds and Will from the deceased Ratankuwarbai, He deposed that he went with deceased ratankuwarbai to Ahmadabad for her treatment and stayed along with her at ahmadabad for 25 days. In his cross examination he stated that Ratankuwarbai was accompanied by Antarsingh from her village to execute the registration of the deeds. Laxmansingh (D. W. 2) is the witness to the registration of the documents. In his cross examination he stated that Ratankuwarbai was accompanied by Antarsingh from her village to execute the registration of the deeds. Laxmansingh (D. W. 2) is the witness to the registration of the documents. He has deposed that the part of the land was sold by Ratankuwarbai to Sumersingh and Manoharsingh and in regard to the rest of land a Will was executed by her in favour of Indersingh. He proved his signatures on sale deeds Ex. D/1 and D/2 as also on the Will Ex. D/3. He also deposed that he asked Ratankuwarbai whether she has received the amount on this she told to him that she has received full amount of the land sold by her. He also stated that mental condition of ratankuwarbai was good at the time of registration of the documents. In his cross examination he stated that Ratankuwarbai informed to her that she has sold the land to Sumersingh and Manoharsingh for Rs. 94,000/- and the amount has already been received by her at her residence. It was also informed to him by ratankuwarbai that since Indersingh is taking care of her therefore she is giving land to him by Will. He also stated that Antarsingh (D. W. 3) was present at the time of registration of the sale deeds and will and informed him that the money was given to Ratankuwarbai in his presence. He deposed that the Sub Registrar while registering the documents read over the documents to everyone in his presence. Antarsingh (D. W. 3) witness of the documents in his deposition has stated that in his presence Ratankuwarbai received Rs. 94,500/- from the defendants at her residence. He stated that he accompanied Ratankuwarbai for going to Sub Registrars office at Kalapipal to execute the registration of the documents. He also stated that in his presence Ratankuwarbai handed over the possession of the land to defendant nos. l, 2 and 3. Dilip (D. W. 4) stated that he has been given the land for cultivation by Ratankuwarbai and he is still in possession of the same. ( 13. ) ADMITTEDLY deceased Ratankuwarbai was aged 60 years at the time of execution of the sale deeds and was suffering from cancer. She became widow around 35 years prior to the execution of the sale deeds Ex. D/1, D/2 and the Will ex. D/3. ( 13. ) ADMITTEDLY deceased Ratankuwarbai was aged 60 years at the time of execution of the sale deeds and was suffering from cancer. She became widow around 35 years prior to the execution of the sale deeds Ex. D/1, D/2 and the Will ex. D/3. For about 35 years she herself was managing her land and worldly activities. During such a long period she already had the experience of worldly affairs. On going through the evidence of the defendant witnesses I find that all the witnesses namely -D. W. 1, D. W. 2 and D. W. 3 have un-equivocally deposed that Ratankuwarbai was living at Dadia Khedi all alone after the death of her husband. Plaintiff was not taking care of her mother and the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 were looking after her. The defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are not strangers but nephews of deceased. When she was in need of money she visited P. W. 2 for monetary help. However P. W. 2 as is clear from her evidence stated that she would accompany her to Ahmadabad only if she arrange for money. On this the deceased ratankuwarbai sold part of the land for consideration of Rs. 94,500/- to defendant nos. 1 and 2. She with a view to keep some property with her for her bad days did not sold the entire land but sold only part of it and in regard to the rest of the land she made a Will in favour of defendant no. 3 who was taking care of her, this itself demonstrates that she was well aware of worldly affairs and also was in good mental condition. The documents Ex. D/1, D/2 and D/3 are registered documents. The execution of these documents is duly proved by the attesting witnesses D. W. 2 and D. W. 3. The evidence on record shows that deceased Ratankuwarbai visited sub Registrars office and the Sub Registrar read over the documents to her in the presence of witnesses and the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3. The witnesses of the sale deeds and the Will have been examined by the defendants to prove the due execution of the same, the payment of the consideration of sale. The sale deeds contains recital that the deceased Ratankuwarbai has received Rs. 37,000/- and rs. 57,500/- respectively in cash. 1, 2 and 3. The witnesses of the sale deeds and the Will have been examined by the defendants to prove the due execution of the same, the payment of the consideration of sale. The sale deeds contains recital that the deceased Ratankuwarbai has received Rs. 37,000/- and rs. 57,500/- respectively in cash. The conduct of deceased Ratankuwarbai in not selling the entire property and making Will of part of the property itself shows that she was in full sense at the time when the transaction was done. Nothing has come in the cross examination of the defendants witnesses to hold that the documents Ex. D/1, D/2 and D/3 have been got executed by the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 from the deceased Ratankuwarbai under the pretext of documents for loan transaction of Rs. 5000/ -. ( 14. ) IN view of the overwhelming evidence about payment of consideration for the sale, the execution of the sale deeds, execution of the Will, the participation of ratankuwarbai for the registration of the documents and other attending circumstances including the fact that the plaintiff was neglecting and was not taking care of deceased Ratankuwarbai prior to and even after suffering of her from the ailment of cancer, I am of the view that the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court holding the documents Ex. D/1, D/2 and D/3 to be null and void is not sustainable. ( 15. ) ACCORDINGLY the appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is set aside with costs through out. The respondent no. 1/plaintiff s suit stands dismissed. Counsels fees as per schedule, if certified. Appeal allowed. 2009-ILR(MP)-0-824 , HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Coram : Mr. Justice Shantanu Kemkar Dec 08,2008 SUMERSINGH Vs HEMKUWARBAI ( 1. ) THIS is defendants first appeal filed u/s. 96 of the civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dt. 24. 10. 97 passed by the first Additional District Judge, Shujalpur, Dist. Shajapur in Civil Suit No. 81-A/95. ( 2. ) THE plaintiff/respondent no. 1 filed a suit for declaration and injunction seeking relief to declare the two sale deeds dt. 06. 04. 95 executed by her mother ratankuwarbai in favour of appellant nos. 1 and 2 and to declare Will executed on the same day by her mother in favour of appellant no. ( 2. ) THE plaintiff/respondent no. 1 filed a suit for declaration and injunction seeking relief to declare the two sale deeds dt. 06. 04. 95 executed by her mother ratankuwarbai in favour of appellant nos. 1 and 2 and to declare Will executed on the same day by her mother in favour of appellant no. 3, to be null and void and not binding on her and to declare her as the sole owner of the suit land. ( 3. ) THE plaintiff/respondent no. 1 case as per the plaint filed on 19. 9. 95 was that the suit land situated at village Dadia Khedi was owned by her father Devisingh and her uncle Mehetabsingh. After the death of her father Devisingh, in December 1961 the suit land of his share was transferred in the name of her mother ratankuwarbai. It is stated by the plaintiff that though name of her mother ratankuwarbai was recorded in the land but she also being legal heir of deceased devisingh was having joint ownership right over the suit land with her mother. It is stated that after the death of her mother on 21. 07. 95 she became the sole owner of the suit land. It was alleged by the first respondent/plaintiff that 3 to 4 months prior to death of her mother Ratankuwarbai she was suffering from Cancer and on account of cancer she died. In order to meet the expenses of her treatment she took Rs. 5,000/-from the appellants/defendant nos. 1,2 and 3. The defendants no. 1,2 and 3 on the pretext of the transaction of loan of Rs. 5,000/- got executed from the deceased Ratankuwarbai the sale deeds dt. 06. 04. 95 without consideration and the Will dt. 06. 04. 95, and got the same registered in the office of Sub-Registrar kala Pipal. She further alleged in the plaint that she being co-owner of the suit property the sale deeds and the Will executed by the deceased Ratankuwarbai are not binding on her. It is her case that taking undue advantage of ill health of ratankuwarbai the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 without paying consideration got the sale deeds executed in their favour and also got the Will executed from her representing it to be a document for loan of Rs. 5,000/- which she took from the appellants for her treatment. ( 4. ) THE defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 without paying consideration got the sale deeds executed in their favour and also got the Will executed from her representing it to be a document for loan of Rs. 5,000/- which she took from the appellants for her treatment. ( 4. ) THE defendants no. 1,2 and 3s case as set out in their written statement was that the plaintiffs mother Ratankuwarbai became sole owner of the land on her husbands death according to the law of succession which was in force at the relevant point of time. It is stated by defendant nos. l, 2 and 3 that the sale deeds were for proper consideration of Rs. 94,500/- which was paid to Ratankuwarbai at her residence prior to the registration of the sale deeds. They denied commission of any fraud by them with Ratankuwarbai. It is also stated that Ratankuwarbai was in their relation and they were taking her care, therefore, she executed a Will in favour of the defendant no. 3. She executed the sale deeds as she was in need of money. The money she received as sale consideration was spent by her in treatment of her ailment of cancer. It was also stated that the plaintiff never cared for her mother and she even did not turn up to look after her during the period of her ailment and also did not attend her last rites. ( 5. ) ON the basis of the above pleadings the Trial Court framed eight issues. The plaintiff examined herself as P. W. 1 and Govind Kuwarbai as P. W. 2. In rebuttal the defendants/appellants examined defendant no. 2 Manoharsingh (D. W. 1),laxmansingh (D. W. 2), Antarsingh (D. W. 3), Dilipsingh (D. W. 4) (wrongly mentioned as D. W. 1 ). The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence held that since devisingh died before 08. 12. 1961 his wife Ratankuwarbai became the sole owner in view of the law prevailing at that time. As regards the validity of the documents, the Trial Court held that Ratankuwarbai was in a state of depression as she was suffering from cancer and the sale deeds which were executed from her were without consideration. The Court below also held the Will to be not proved. Accordingly it held that the sale deeds and Will executed by the plaintiffs mother ratankuwarbai are not binding on the plaintiff. The Court below also held the Will to be not proved. Accordingly it held that the sale deeds and Will executed by the plaintiffs mother ratankuwarbai are not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiffs suit was accordingly decreed by the Trial Court holding the sale deeds and the Will to be null and void. ( 6. ) HEARD Shri P. V. Bhagwat learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Himanshu Joshi and Smt. Usha Chouhan learned counsel for respondent no. 1. Perused the record. ( 7. ) SHRI P. V. Bhagwat learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial Court has committed error in holding that since Ratankuwarbai was suffering from cancer therefore she was under the state of depression. According to him though the Trial Court had recorded a finding that the defendants/appellants were looking after Ratankuwarbai, erred in not giving due weightage to the same as it was a circumstance in favour of the appellants justifying executing of Will in favour of the defendant no. 3. He also contended that by the documentary and oral evidence led on behalf of the appellants it was duly proved by them that the sale deeds were executed for consideration of Rs. 94,500/- which was duly received by the plaintiff and the sale deeds were duly registered before the Sub Registrar. He argued that since Ratankuwarbai was in need of money she sold land for lump sum amount which was utilised by her in her treatment. He also argued that from the evidence on record it was duly established that the plaintiff did not perform her obligation as a daughter and never cared for her mother Ratankuwarbai and even did not came to meet her during her period of suffering from ailment, thus according to him the entire conduct of the plaintiff as is clear from the evidence on record justifies the execution of the sale deeds and Will by the deceased ratankuwarbai in favour of the appellants. ( 8. ) ON the other hand it has been contended by learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff that the appellants in the garb of executing the documents of loan transaction of Rs. 5000/- got executed two sale deeds and a Will from ratankuwarbai. According to him the sale deeds executed by the defendant nos. ( 8. ) ON the other hand it has been contended by learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff that the appellants in the garb of executing the documents of loan transaction of Rs. 5000/- got executed two sale deeds and a Will from ratankuwarbai. According to him the sale deeds executed by the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 from the plaintiff were without consideration and as such the Trial Court has rightly declared the same to be null and void. He also argued that the Will also has rightly been held by the Trial Court to be not proved. ( 9. ) AT the time of execution of the sale deeds and the Will the deceased ratankuwarbai was aged 60 years. Admittedly she was an illiterate lady and was suffering from cancer. In the circumstances while appreciating the evidence it is to be kept in mind that the ordinary presumption that a person understands the documents to which he has affixed his thumb would not apply in this case. The supreme Court in Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1203 has held that 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 entered into 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 documents were explained to her and she understood it but also by other evidence, direct and circumstantial. Shri P. V. Bhagwat learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the Judgment of Supreme Court in case of savithri and Ors. v. Karthyayani Amma and Ors. 2007 AIR SCW 6787 in which the Supreme Court rejected the plea of undue influence in executing the Will by testator a cancer patient living with his sister in favour of sister, her son and grandson who are looking after him holding that the execution of Will is natural. The Supreme Court also held that the plea of coercion of suspicious circumstances in executing the Will has to be proved by the party alleging coercion. ( 10. The Supreme Court also held that the plea of coercion of suspicious circumstances in executing the Will has to be proved by the party alleging coercion. ( 10. ) IN order to decide the controversy the evidence led by the parties is to be scanned in terms of this legal position. ( 11. ) PLAINTIFF Hemkuwarbai (P. W. 1) m her deposition has stated that her father devisingh died 35 years ago she was infant child of six months. She stated that 4 to 5 months prior to the death of her mother, by cancer it was known to her mother that she is suffering from cancer. She stated that her mother Ratankuwarbai took loan of Rs. 5000/- from defendant no. 2 Manoharsingh. She also deposed that under the garb of documentation of tilts transaction of Rs. 5000/- appellants no. 1 and 2 got executed the documents of sale deeds and Will from her mother ratankuwarbai. Ratankuwarbai visited Ahmadabad for her treatment with manorsingh and her aunt Govindkuwarbai (P. W. 2 ). They returned after one month from Ahmadabad. She admitted that she never visited her mother after getting knowledge of her being suffering from cancer. In her cross examination she stated that the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are her cousins. Govindkuwarbai (P. W. 2) stated that the plaintiff Hemkuwarbai is her niece. She also deposed that Ratankuwarbai was suffering from cancer and she visited her place of residence at Rajgarh and was worried about her ailment. On her consolation she went back to her village and after arranging money for her treatment she along with Manoharsingh came to Rajgarh and thereafter she along with Ratankuwarbai and Manoharsingh visited ahmadabad for treatment of Ratankuwarbai. She stated that only Rs. 5,000/- were spent in her treatment which includes up and down journey fare of all the three persons. ( 12. ) MANOHARSINGH (D. W. 1) in his deposition has stated that plaintiff hemkuwarbai was married at village Lasudia. He stated that he and his brother sumersingh purchased land from Ratankuwarbai for Rs. 94,500/- by two separate sale deeds Ex. D/1 and Ex. D/2 which were registered for Rs. 37,000/- and 57,500/-He stated that the price of the land was given to Ratankuwarbai in the presence of Antarsingh at her residence. He also deposed as to of which denominations the currency notes were paid to the deceased Ratankuwarbai. 94,500/- by two separate sale deeds Ex. D/1 and Ex. D/2 which were registered for Rs. 37,000/- and 57,500/-He stated that the price of the land was given to Ratankuwarbai in the presence of Antarsingh at her residence. He also deposed as to of which denominations the currency notes were paid to the deceased Ratankuwarbai. The amount so paid to her was counted by her. He further stated that since they were taking care of ratankuwarbai she made a Will (Ex. D/3) in favour of Indersingh. It is also stated by him that at the time when the sale deeds Ex. D/1 and D/2 and the Will Ex. D/3 were registered Ratankuwarbai was in good condition. He further deposed that the price of land paid by them for purchase of the land from Ratankuwarbai was spent by Ratankuwarbai for her treatment. He denied the suggestion that at the time when the sale deeds and the Will were executed, deceased Ratankuwarbai was under depression. He also denied that in the garb of preparing documents for the loan transaction of Rs. 5,000/- they got executed the sale deeds and Will from the deceased Ratankuwarbai, He deposed that he went with deceased ratankuwarbai to Ahmadabad for her treatment and stayed along with her at ahmadabad for 25 days. In his cross examination he stated that Ratankuwarbai was accompanied by Antarsingh from her village to execute the registration of the deeds. Laxmansingh (D. W. 2) is the witness to the registration of the documents. He has deposed that the part of the land was sold by Ratankuwarbai to Sumersingh and Manoharsingh and in regard to the rest of land a Will was executed by her in favour of Indersingh. He proved his signatures on sale deeds Ex. D/1 and D/2 as also on the Will Ex. D/3. He also deposed that he asked Ratankuwarbai whether she has received the amount on this she told to him that she has received full amount of the land sold by her. He also stated that mental condition of ratankuwarbai was good at the time of registration of the documents. In his cross examination he stated that Ratankuwarbai informed to her that she has sold the land to Sumersingh and Manoharsingh for Rs. 94,000/- and the amount has already been received by her at her residence. He also stated that mental condition of ratankuwarbai was good at the time of registration of the documents. In his cross examination he stated that Ratankuwarbai informed to her that she has sold the land to Sumersingh and Manoharsingh for Rs. 94,000/- and the amount has already been received by her at her residence. It was also informed to him by ratankuwarbai that since Indersingh is taking care of her therefore she is giving land to him by Will. He also stated that Antarsingh (D. W. 3) was present at the time of registration of the sale deeds and will and informed him that the money was given to Ratankuwarbai in his presence. He deposed that the Sub Registrar while registering the documents read over the documents to everyone in his presence. Antarsingh (D. W. 3) witness of the documents in his deposition has stated that in his presence Ratankuwarbai received Rs. 94,500/- from the defendants at her residence. He stated that he accompanied Ratankuwarbai for going to Sub Registrars office at Kalapipal to execute the registration of the documents. He also stated that in his presence Ratankuwarbai handed over the possession of the land to defendant nos. l, 2 and 3. Dilip (D. W. 4) stated that he has been given the land for cultivation by Ratankuwarbai and he is still in possession of the same. ( 13. ) ADMITTEDLY deceased Ratankuwarbai was aged 60 years at the time of execution of the sale deeds and was suffering from cancer. She became widow around 35 years prior to the execution of the sale deeds Ex. D/1, D/2 and the Will ex. D/3. For about 35 years she herself was managing her land and worldly activities. During such a long period she already had the experience of worldly affairs. On going through the evidence of the defendant witnesses I find that all the witnesses namely -D. W. 1, D. W. 2 and D. W. 3 have un-equivocally deposed that Ratankuwarbai was living at Dadia Khedi all alone after the death of her husband. Plaintiff was not taking care of her mother and the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 were looking after her. The defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are not strangers but nephews of deceased. When she was in need of money she visited P. W. 2 for monetary help. Plaintiff was not taking care of her mother and the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 were looking after her. The defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are not strangers but nephews of deceased. When she was in need of money she visited P. W. 2 for monetary help. However P. W. 2 as is clear from her evidence stated that she would accompany her to Ahmadabad only if she arrange for money. On this the deceased ratankuwarbai sold part of the land for consideration of Rs. 94,500/- to defendant nos. 1 and 2. She with a view to keep some property with her for her bad days did not sold the entire land but sold only part of it and in regard to the rest of the land she made a Will in favour of defendant no. 3 who was taking care of her, this itself demonstrates that she was well aware of worldly affairs and also was in good mental condition. The documents Ex. D/1, D/2 and D/3 are registered documents. The execution of these documents is duly proved by the attesting witnesses D. W. 2 and D. W. 3. The evidence on record shows that deceased Ratankuwarbai visited sub Registrars office and the Sub Registrar read over the documents to her in the presence of witnesses and the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3. The witnesses of the sale deeds and the Will have been examined by the defendants to prove the due execution of the same, the payment of the consideration of sale. The sale deeds contains recital that the deceased Ratankuwarbai has received Rs. 37,000/- and rs. 57,500/- respectively in cash. The conduct of deceased Ratankuwarbai in not selling the entire property and making Will of part of the property itself shows that she was in full sense at the time when the transaction was done. Nothing has come in the cross examination of the defendants witnesses to hold that the documents Ex. D/1, D/2 and D/3 have been got executed by the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 from the deceased Ratankuwarbai under the pretext of documents for loan transaction of Rs. 5000/ -. ( 14. Nothing has come in the cross examination of the defendants witnesses to hold that the documents Ex. D/1, D/2 and D/3 have been got executed by the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 from the deceased Ratankuwarbai under the pretext of documents for loan transaction of Rs. 5000/ -. ( 14. ) IN view of the overwhelming evidence about payment of consideration for the sale, the execution of the sale deeds, execution of the Will, the participation of ratankuwarbai for the registration of the documents and other attending circumstances including the fact that the plaintiff was neglecting and was not taking care of deceased Ratankuwarbai prior to and even after suffering of her from the ailment of cancer, I am of the view that the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court holding the documents Ex. D/1, D/2 and D/3 to be null and void is not sustainable. ( 15. ) ACCORDINGLY the appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is set aside with costs through out. The respondent no. 1/plaintiff s suit stands dismissed. Counsels fees as per schedule, if certified. Appeal allowed.