D.C. Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is defendant's second appeal. Brief facts essential for disposal of this appeal are as under :
(2.) The deceased-plaintiff, Smt. Sabbirunnisan, filed a suit for cancellation of two sale-deeds dated 7.5.1960 and 4.6.1960 and also for recovery of possession of the subject-matter of sale-deeds and for recovery of Rs. 800 as damages. The allegations in the plaint were that by virtue of inheritance explained in the plaint the deceased-plaintiff. Smt. Sabbirunnisan held 13/48 share in the plots detailed in schedule 'A' and residential house detailed in schedule 'C' and half share in occupancy plots detailed in schedule 'E' of the plaint. Hakimuddin, the original defendant No. 1, was cousin of Mohammad Anls. He occasionally visited the village and resided with Sabbirunnisan. Sabbirunnisan was illiterate Pardanasin lady aged about 65 to 70 years. She had eye trouble. Hakimuddtn took her to Allahabad on the pretext that he will consult some eye specialist for the treatment of her eye trouble. She was brought by Hakimuddin to Allahabad where Hakimuddin represented her that in view of the change in law regarding agricultural land, she should obtain bhumidhari rights on sirdari plots. In the month of Jeth of 1960 Hakimuddin took her to court at Allahabad and obtained her thumb impression on a document representing that it was in connection with acquisition of bhumidhari rights. She being illiterate Pardanashin lady could not know about the contents of the document. About a month thereafter, it was again represented by Hakimuddin that a power-of-attorney should be executed by her in his favour and obtained another thumb impression on another document. These two documents were used for getting the two sale-deeds impugned executed by Sabbirunnisan. 15 days before the institution of the suit, standing crops of Sabbirunnisan over the plots were harvested by Hakimuddin. On enquiry he told that she had executed documents transferring her rights in the agricultural plots and residential house to him. She then after obtaining copies of the sale-deeds came to know that the sale-deeds dated 7.5.1960 and 4.6.1960 were got executed by practising fraud upon her and no consideration was paid and that the contents of the same were never read over and explained to her and that no independent legal advice or consultation was given to Sabbirunnisan. She remained in possession till Hakimuddin forcibly harvested the crop. Further it was alleged that the sale-deeds were in excess of the rights of Sabbirunnisan. She also claimed Rs. 800 as damages for causing damage to the standing crop.
(3.) The suit was resisted on the ground that the sale-deeds are valid and were executed by the deceased-plaintiff after understanding its contents. No fraud was practised on her and that the deceased-plaintiff was not a Pardanashin lady.;