Sudisht Lal vs Mussamut Sheobarat Koer on 10 February, 1881
There are many other cases to be found in the Reports which lay down the same doctrine, but I will cite only one more passage from the judgment of their Lordships in a recent case--Sudisht Lal v. Sheobarat Kaer I.L.R. 7 Cal. 245 : L.R. 8 Ind. Ap. 39 in which the facts were somewhat similar to those of the present case: "Their Lordships desire to observe that there is no satisfactory evidence that this mukhlar-nama was explained to the defendant in such a way as to enable her to comprehend the extent of the power she was conferring upon her husband. In the case of deeds and powers executed by pardah-nashin ladies, it is requisite that those who rely upon them should satisfy the Court that they had been explained to, and understood by, those who execute them. There is a want of satisfactory evidence of that kind in the present case. But their Lordships do not desire to rest their decision upon this ground.... If it had been proved that the husband had contracted loans and obtained advances on behalf of his wife, it may be that under this power-of-attorney she would be bound by his acts, as being within the scope of his authority. But it Would have to be shown, not only that he borrowed the money, but that it was borrowed for her." These passages seem to me to be closely applicable to the circumstances of this case.