The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific and detailed pleading of undue influence and fraud, and the burden of proof on the defendant to show that the transaction was not induced by undue influence. The judgment emphasized the fiduciary relationship between the parties and the unconscionable nature of the deed of gift, leading to the shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and Order dated 19.05.1994 passed in First Appeal No.166 of 1979 by which the appeal has been dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.12.1978 passed by Sri Mundrika Prasad, VIth Additional sub-Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No.129 of 1965 / 25 of 1977.

2. Appellant is the defendant in the suit. Original Plaintiff Amar Rai filed a suit for declaration that the deed of gift dated 07.02.1964 executed by him in favour of defendant Sita Ram Singh with respect to the property in suit is illegal, inoperative and void with further prayer for recovery of possession of suit property and mense profit.

3. The original plaintiff Amar Rai died during pendency of suit, his wife and daughter were substituted in his place as plaintiff no.1 and 2 respectively.

4. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the said original plaintiff Amar Rai had got his first marriage at village Pachphor, the first wife (Dhanrajo Devi) died issueless. After the death of the first wife the amar Rai got second marriage with Kishori Devi plaintiff no.1 and from the second wife the original plaintiff Amar Rai blessed with a daughter who is Draupadi plaintiff no.2 and was about 10 years old at the time of the institution of the suit. The further case is that the Amar Rai had got some near Gotia alive. The further case the mother of defendant Sita Ram and first wife of original plaintiff Amar Rai had their Naihar at village Pachphor and so there was a relationship of sister between them by virtue of being of same village, so defendant Sitaram used to call the original plaintiff Amar rai as Mausa. The further case is that the plaintiff got mentally and physically weak due to old age as he was 70 years old and in ill health and hence, the defendant used to visit the house of the plaintiff and manage his agricultural pursuits and got the confidence and trust of original plaintiff and even dominating the will of the original plaintiff Amar Rai. The further case is that the defendant impressed the original plaintiff to execute an intjamnama for managing the agriculture of original plaintiff. On 07.02.1964, the defendant Sitaram came and took the original plaintiff amar Rai to Siwan Sub-Registry Office and got a deed executed and took the signature or thumb impression on several papers but it was neither read over nor explained and on the next day the defendant along with other brought the original plaintiff to Registry Office and got the deed registered.

5. The further case of the plaintiff is that after one months the plaintiff learnt as he heard Hulla in the village that instead of getting a deed of Intjamnama the defendant has fraudulently got a deed of gift having been executed and registered and then the plaintiff contacted his Pattidar Ram jatan Rai and got a certified copy and then he learnt that the defendant has committed fraud and instead of Intjamnama has got a deed of gift executed with respect to entire property. Then the plaintiff filed a criminal case under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against defendant Sitaram. However, the defendant got acquitted in the said criminal case and started threatening to dispossess and even tried to get mutation. Hence, the suit was filed for setting aside the deed of gift on the ground of its execution by fraud, undue influence and misappropriation.

6. The defendant appeared in the case and filed the written statement. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff No.1 Kishori Devi is not a legally wedded wife of original plaintiff Amar Rai nor the plaintiff no.2 is the legitimate child of the original plaintiff Amar Rai and so has got no title in the disputed land. The further case is that the original plaintiff amar Rai had brought plaintiff no.1 after purchase and had kept her as concubine and Amar Rai out of fear of his prestige admitted defendant no.1 as his wife and further original plaintiff Amar Rai was neither 70 ye