The burden of proving the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence is on the party in a fiduciary relationship, and they must show that the transaction is fair and reasonable.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The Appellant in the present Appeal is impugning the judgment & Decree dated 05.12.2022 ("Impugned judgment") passed by ADJ-02, North Rohini Court Complex, Delhi in CS DJ No. 309/2020 titled as `Smt. Kela Devi v. Geeta & Ors.. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court, inter-alia, decreed the suit in favor of the Respondent and declared that the Respondent is the sole owner of the property bearing Flat no. 33, Pocket A9, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi ("the suit property") and the Appellant has no right, title or interest in the suit property. The Appellant vide the present Appeal is praying for setting aside of the Impugned judgment.

2. The Trial Court Record is available with this Court. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the appeal may be heard today itself and no date for hearing of the appeal be fixed as contemplated by sub-Rule 1 of Rule 11 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure.

FACTS GERMANE FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:

3. The Respondent is an old and illiterate lady of about 74 years. The Respondent had one son and four daughters. In October 1997, the Respondent's son passed away. Her husband passed away on 19.07.2014 and she lost her one daughter namely Ms. Saroj in the year 2015. The appellant is her younger daughter.

4. It is the case of the Respondent that after the sad demise of her son, she and her deceased husband wanted to shift from Narela to Rohini. Hence they purchased a flat, i.e., C-124, Millennium Apartments, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi in the year 2001. In the same year, Respondent also purchased another flat bearing no.3, Pocket A7, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi in the name of her younger daughter/Appellant herein. It is further the case of the Respondent that they bought a flat for the Appellant in the hope that she will take care of them in their old age.

5. It is further the claim of the Respondent that after the death of her husband, the Respondent was residing alone in the said flat, i.e., C-124, Millennium Apartments, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi. The Appellant and Original Defendant No.2 (husband of the Appellant) visited the house of the Respondent and told her about the frequent incidents of theft and murder in the locality, specifically against the older people residing alone. On hearing these narrations, the Respondent got terrified. The Appellant and her husband later convinced the Respondent for disposing of her flat, i.e. C-124, Millennium Apartments, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi and buy a new flat near the Appellant. The Respondent further states that being old and illiterate, she was totally dependent upon the Appellant. It is further the claim of the Respondent that she has a bank account bearing no. 3279528500 with Central Bank of India, Sector 18, Rohini and the Appellant also has a bank account with the same bank. The Appellant took undue advantage of the fact that the Respondent was an illiterate lady and got thumb impressions of the Respondent on many papers which were typed as well as blank.

6. Thereafter, Flat C-124, Millennium Apartments, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi was sold for an amount of Rs.85,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty-Five Lakhs Only) and the Appellant assured the Respondent that the entire amount was kept in the bank account of the Respondent. Thereafter, Appellant along with her husband and one Ms. Renu (original Defendant No.3) bought the suit property. All the dealings and documentation etc. were done by the Appellant and original Defendant Nos.2 to 4 themselves. Pertinently, after the purchase of the suit property, the Appellant rented out her own house and started residing with the Respondent in the suit property.

7. The Respondent further claims that gradually the behavior of the Appellant totally changed towards the Respondent and she started misbehaving and abusing the Respondent. Further, in the month of August 2018, the Appellant picked up a quarrel with the Respondent and when the Respondent asked the