ORDER :- This appeal. under Section 100 of the C. P. C. has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27-8-2001 passed by Civil Judge (S. D.) Roorke thereby dismissing First Appeal No. 5/2001. Smt. Rabiya v. Ali Hussain & others. thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 19-1-2001 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) dismissing Suit No. 155/96. Smt. Rabiya v. Ali Hussain & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff /appellant filed a suit against the defendants/respondents for cancellation of sale deed dated 10-5-1995. registered in Sub Registrar Office. Jagadari. Roorkee at Bahi No.1. Zild 02. 25 on 22-5-1995. According to the plaint case the plaintiff Smt. Rabiya inherited the property. shown in the Schedule of property given at the foot of the plaint, from her father late Sri Ahamad and now she is owner in possession of the said land. The defendant Nos. 1 and 3, Ali Hassan and Abdul Hassan, respectively are the sons of her great grand father and Smt. Raqiba. defendant No.2. is the wife of Ali Hassan (defendant No.1). The defendant No. 1 in order to grab the property of the plaintiff, got prepared forged power of attorney. in the name of the plaintiff on 25-4-1995. Thereafter, the defendant No.1. Ali Hassan. on the basis of forged power of attorney, also got prepared forged sale deed with regard to the property belonging to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1.50.000/- on 10-5-1995 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and also got it registered. According to the plaintiff the sale price of the disputed land in any manner could not be less than Rs. 3.00.0001-. In the sale deed the witness Tosheef is the man of the defendants and scribe is the Clerk Advocate Asif Ali It is also alleged in the plaint that there is no recital that who had actually received the sale consideration of Rs. 1.50.000/-. The further assertion of the plaintiff is that she is in actual possession of the disputed land and the forged sale deed was never acted upon. She also alleged that Roorkee Tehsil is nearer to her village and there was no occasion for her to prepare power of attorney instead of registering the sale deed directly. Therefore. the plaintiff sought a decree for cancellation of sale deed allegedly obtained by playing fraud. 3. She also alleged that Roorkee Tehsil is nearer to her village and there was no occasion for her to prepare power of attorney instead of registering the sale deed directly. Therefore. the plaintiff sought a decree for cancellation of sale deed allegedly obtained by playing fraud. 3. The defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing written statement and admitted this fact that the plaintiff inherited the disputed property from her father late Sri Ahamad, but he alleged that the said property remained in his possession and used to plough, to sow and to harvest the crops over it upto 15-5-1995. Thereafter the disputed land was handed over to defendants 2 and 3. According to him, the plaintiff lives in her Sasural in village Ikkar which is about 30 kilometers away from village Landhora. Her husband is a labour by profession and he often used to go to Haryana and Punjab and the plaintiff also accompany him. Therefore, the disputed land was being looked after by the defendant No.1. The defendant No. 1 used to give her half of the crops obtained from the disputed land, but the plaintiff was not satisfied with it she directed him to search for a purchaser of the said land and also asked him for preparation of a power of attorney. In the month of April 1995 the plaintiff had come Roorkee for preparation I of power of attorney and its registration but there it was informed that the Collector had forbidden for doing registration of power of attorney and for that purpose permission of Collector was necessary. At this the plaintiff suggeeted that he should visit Jagadari where she will execute power of attorney in his father. Thereafter on 25-4-1995 the plaintiff got executed power of attorney in favour of defendant by free consent empowering the defendant No. 1 to act on her behalf. Before its execution the contents of power of attorney were read over and explained to the plaintiff appellant in presence of witnesses, of power of attorney namely Shri Rati Ram and Shri Shamsher Ali and after understanding the contents of power of attorney she put her thumb impression on power of attorney, which was registered in Sub Registrar Office. She also appeared in the office of Sub Registrar and admitted the execution of power of attorney before Sub Registrar. The power of attorney dated 25-4-2005 is not a forged document. She also appeared in the office of Sub Registrar and admitted the execution of power of attorney before Sub Registrar. The power of attorney dated 25-4-2005 is not a forged document. The defendant No. 1 exercising the powers given to him in the power of attorney executed the sale deed on 10-5-1995 in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3. He also called the plaintiff to come to Roorkee so that she may obtain the sale price but she did not come there on 10-5-1995. On 15-51995 the plaintiff came in the village and the sale consideration was handed over to her there and the sale deed was presented for its registration. He also alleged that the defendants 2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers of the disputed land and they are owner in possession of that land and the plaintiff has no concern with the said land. 4. The defendants/respondents Nos. 2 and 3 also contested the suit by filing their written statement and denied the averments of the plaint. They have made specific assertion that the power of attorney was got registered by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 on 25-4-1995 in Tehsil Jagadari Registrar Office and on the basis of the powers given to defendant No. 1 in the power of attorney, they have purchased the disputed land on 15-5-1995 for a price of Rs. 1,50,000/-. According to them the cost of the land, i.e. Rs. 1,50,000/- was handed over to defendant No.1. Therefore, they are owner in possession of the disputed land since 15-5-1995 and no one else has any concern with that land. 5. On the pleadings of parties the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) framed following issues:- (1) Whether the sale deed dated 10-51995 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is liable to be cancelled on the grounds set in the plaint? (2) Whether the alleged power of attorney dated 25-4-1995 executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 is forged document and the plaintiff did not execute the same? If so its effect? (3) Whether the plaintiff received the sale consideration in respect of sale deed from defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 &3? (4) Whether the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the property in dispute? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief? If so its effect? (3) Whether the plaintiff received the sale consideration in respect of sale deed from defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 &3? (4) Whether the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the property in dispute? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief? (6) Whether after selling the property in dispute to Mohammad Mateen by the plaintiff, the suit rendered infructuous? (7) Whether the suit is barred by principle of estoppel and acquiescence? (8) Whether the suit renderedinfructuous in view of the contention raised in para No. 13-A of the written statement? 6. Parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case. 7. The learned Civil Judge (J.D.) after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence, dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff/appellant vide judgment and order dated 19-1-2001. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed appeal before Civil Judge (S. D.), Roorkee, who vide judgment and decree dated 27-82001 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 9. At the time of admission of appeal, this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: 1- As to whether both the courts below were justified placing burden of proof on the plaintiff/appellant to prove negative fact that power of attorney is not executed by her? 2- Whether burden/ onus of proof lies on the transferee when transferor totally denies execution of the deed by himself? If so, its effect? 10. Heard Sri Arvind Vashisht, learned counsel for appellant, Sri A. K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record. 11. It is an admitted case of the parties that plaintiff/appellant is a resident of village Ikkar Kalan (Uttaranchal) which is situated at a long distance from Jagadari/Yamuna Nagar (Haryana). It does not appeal to reason that why the plaintiff/appellant shall go to Jagadari/Yamuna Nagar to get the power of attorney executed in favour of respondent No. 1- Ali Hussain. Paragraph 4 of the plaint reveals that the alleged power of attorney was executed by respondent No.1 on 25-4-1995 at Jagadari. In fact, the plaintiff/appellant did not have any knowledge with regard to that alleged power of attorney as she did not execute any power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 1. Paragraph 4 of the plaint reveals that the alleged power of attorney was executed by respondent No.1 on 25-4-1995 at Jagadari. In fact, the plaintiff/appellant did not have any knowledge with regard to that alleged power of attorney as she did not execute any power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 1. Paragraph 5 of the plaint reveals that plaintiff/appellant has further taken specific plea that sale deed dated 10-5-1995 on the basis of alleged power of attorney was executed in favour of respondents Nos. 2 to 3 for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- and this sale deed was executed only in order to grab the land belonging to the plaintiff 1 appellant. The plaintiff/appellant has also taken a specific plea that no transaction of money had ever taken place between plaintiff and respondents. In paragraph 7 of plaint, further a plea has been taken that there was no occasion with the plaintiff/appellant to go to Jagadari in order to execute the power of attorney as well as the sale deed and the alleged sale deed is forged and fabricated. Paragraph 11 of the plaint shows that the plaintiff is still in possession over the land in question and the possession has never been handed over to the respondents on the basis of alleged sale deed as the alleged sale deed is a result of fraud and misrepresentation. 'The averments made in the plaint although have been denied by respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 by way of written statements filed by them, but still the point for consideration survives as to whether the defendants/respondents have established this aspect by adducing cogent and reliable evidence that the alleged power of attorney is not a result of fraud and misrepresentation. 12. Now, on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties as well as evidence available on record, it is to be seen whether the burden to prove that the alleged power of attorney executed by plaintiff/appellant in favour of respondents lies on the shoulder of plaintiff/appellant or on the shoulder of defendants/respondents who denied the pleading of the plaintiff/appellant on the ground that the power of attorney is not a result of fraud and misrepresentation. 13. 13. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that it is the burden of the plaintiff/appellant to prove that the alleged power of attorney executed in favour of respondent No.1 is a result of fraud and misrepresentation. The Courts below have recorded the finding that the attesting witnesses DW -4 and DW -5 have proved the execution of power of attorney and in the event of these circumstances the burden to prove that the alleged power of attorney was executed on account of fraud and misrepresentation again shifts on the shoulder of plaintiff/appellant. The lower appellate Court has also confirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court. 14. I do not find myself in agreement with the view adopted by both the Courts below. The evidence available on record indicates that the plaintiff/appellant is an illiterate and pardanasheen lady. She has taken the specific plea that she never executed power of attorney in favour of respondent No.1. Therefore, the burden to prove that alleged power of attorney is not a result of fraud and misrepresentation, lies on the shoulder of defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 3 because they are the beneficiaries. The Courts below have ignored this factual aspect and by misreading the entire evidence held that the plaintiff/appellant fails to prove that power of attorney is outcome of fraud, misrepresentation and forgery. 15. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that in view of concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below there is no merit in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. The judgments passed by the Hon'ble apex Court reported in 1999 Vol. IV, SCC, page 350 : (AIR 1999 SC 2216) Arumugaham (dead) by LRs and others v. Sundarambal and another and 2001, Vol. III. SCC, page 179 : (AIR 2001 SC 965), Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam I Tiwari, have been cited by learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 & 3 in support of his argument. 16. IV, SCC, page 350 : (AIR 1999 SC 2216) Arumugaham (dead) by LRs and others v. Sundarambal and another and 2001, Vol. III. SCC, page 179 : (AIR 2001 SC 965), Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam I Tiwari, have been cited by learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 & 3 in support of his argument. 16. It is true that both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts, but both the Courts below have ignored this aspect that in case of any transaction by a pardanasheen lady the burden of proof is always on the person who seeks to sustain a transaction entered into with a pardanasheen lady to establish that the said document was executed by her after clearly understanding the nature of the transaction and this burden can be discharged not only by proving that the document was explained to her and she understood it, but also by other evidence, direct and circumstantial. The rules regarding transaction by pardanasheen lady apply equally to illiterate lady, though she may not be in strict sense of pardanasheen lady. In view of the circumstance emerges in the instant case that the plaintiff /appellant is an illiterate lady, hence the burden of proof would lie on the shoulder of defendants/respondents to prove that the document was explained to the plaintiff/appellant and she understood it and thereafter transaction entered into. I am of the view that rulings cited by learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in support of his argument do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. The law throws round the plaintiff/appellant a special cloak of protection being an illiterate and pardanasheen lady. It demands that the burden of proof shall in such a case rest, not with those who attack, but with those who found upon 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 to, and was really understood by the grantor. In such case it must also, of course, be established that the deed was not signed under duress, but arose from the free and independent will of the grantor. In the instant case, both the courts below failed to find that the power of attorney was executed by the plaintiff/appellant with the knowledge of its contents. In such case it must also, of course, be established that the deed was not signed under duress, but arose from the free and independent will of the grantor. In the instant case, both the courts below failed to find that the power of attorney was executed by the plaintiff/appellant with the knowledge of its contents. Further, both the Courts below have wrongly shifted the burden on the shoulder of plaintiff/appellant. 18. My view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1203, Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai and others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court relying on a judgment propounded by Hon'ble Privy Council (AIR 1925 PC-204), has held as under: "In India pardanashin ladies have been given a special cloak of protection in view of the social conditions of the times; they are presumed to have an imperfect knowledge of the world, as by the pardah system they are practically excluded from social intercourse and communication with the outside world. 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." 18A. On the basis of assessment of evidence on record, I come to the conclusion that both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record in a correct perspective. On the basis of assessment of evidence on record, I come to the conclusion that both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record in a correct perspective. In fact, the burden of proof has been wrongly shifted on the shoulder of plaintiff-appellant instead of defendants/ respondents. 19. 'Therefore, both the substantial questions of law formulated in the Appeal are answered in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and against the defendants/respondents. 20. With the result, the appeal is allowed with cost. The judgment and decree passed by trial Court dismissing the suit of plaintiff/appellant vide judgment and decree dated 19-1-2001. as confirmed by the first appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 5/2001 vide judgment and order dated 27-8-2001. are set aside. 21. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the Court of trial Judge to decide the suit in view of the evidence available on record, as well as the observation made in the body of this judgment, and in the light of the view propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the ruling cited in the body of the judgment. 22. As the matter is quite old, hence the trial Courts is further directed to decide the suit within a period of 45 days, after affording an opportunity to the learned counsel for the parties of being heard. Appeal allowed.