Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

We have applied a century old principle in the instant case. The principle is that whenever an instrument is executed by a pardanashin lady it must be clearly proved by the other party that the executant, parda woman, was free agent and understood the nature and effect of the instrument she executed. The lady is town-bred and we are applying the principle in an enlightened age when India has progressed so much. In Kharbuja Kuer v. Jang Bahadur, AIR 1963 SC 1203, the Supreme Court has laid down that the principles are applicable subject to the modification of the rule in Farid-Un-Nisa v. Mukhtar Ahmed, 52 Ind App 342 : (AIR 1925 PC 204), The true principle of the burden of proof applicable in the case of a document executed by a pardanashin lady has been stated by the Supreme Court thus (at P. 1206):
"While affirming the principle that the burden is upon the person who seeks to sustain a document executed by a pardanashin lady that she executed it with a true understanding mind, it has been held that the proof of the fact that it has been explained to her is not the only mode of discharging the said burden, but the fact whether she voluntarily executed the document or not could be ascertained from other evidence and circumstances in the case. The same view was again reiterated by the Judicial Committee, through Sir George Rankin, in Hem Chandra v. Suradhani Debya, AIR 1940 PC 134. Further citation is unnecessary. The legal position has been very well settled. Shortly it may be stated thus : 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 other evidence, direct and circumstantial."

20. What Is The Position Of The Present Day Urban Pardanashin Ladies? Do They Stand In The Same Position With Those Of Pardanashins?

All town-bred ladies, inparda or not, know that physician should be called when there is illness in the house. Almost all know that when a legal document is to be executed lawyer should be consulted. There may be quasi pardanashin ladies in urban areas but all of them know the necessity of taking lawyer's aid in transacting documents. The position is changing fast and as such the application of the principle should be confined to real pardanashin ladies who are really ignorant, infirm and illiterate living in seclusion behind the parda. I am, therefore, of the opinion that principle enunciated should be applied to all pardanashin women who " are really pardanashin.

21. Should We Deny The Protective Umbrella To Rustics, Who Are Ignorant, Infirm, Illiterate Of Semi-Literate?

They are more likely to be imposed upon by the exertion of undue influence over them. They have pardas illiteracy and ignorance. Indeed, they may not be physical pardas but surely they are mental 'pardas'. Due to ignorance, illiteracy and simplicity they should also be treated in the same class. Do they stand on a better footing than rich pardanashin women? Until their pardas are removed and they are made equal to the rest of the people the principles which are being applied in the Court of Chancery, that is, the protection to all weak, ignorant and infirm persons should also be extended to our rural population who are weak, ignorant and infirm. They are also likely to be imposed upon, influenced by the exertion of undue influence over them. Uneducated or Semi literate working women, are more susceptible to exertion of undue influence. Many of them have lost everything. Many more are losing every day. In my opinion the ignorant rustics who have no knowledge about the implication of legal documents should have the same protection which is being afforded to the rich pardanashin women. It is high time that all should do something positive and affirmative in this constituency as well. It is for consideration whether the provisions of Section 111 of the Evidence Act, the provisions of Section 114 illustration (c), Section 16 of the Contract Act, 1872 and Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 need be suitably amended and the principles applicable to pardanashin ladies should be expressly made applicable to the weak, ignorant and in firm, and to those who for any other reason are specially likely to be imposed upon by the exertion of undue influence over them.