Pleadings in fraud cases must detail specific particulars; general allegations do not suffice to establish a claim of fraud or misrepresentation.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

I.A. 3703/2022 (U/O VII Rule 11 (a), (c) & (d) r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908)

1. The present application under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (c) and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC, 1908") has been filed on behalf of the defendant No. 2/Abhishek Oberoi seeking rejection of the Plaint.

2. Facts in brief are that defendant No. 2 Abhishek Oberoi is the real brother of the plaintiff Karishma Oberoi and defendant No. 1 Ajay Kumar is her younger uncle (Phufa). The plaintiff has filed the present Suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 10th February, 2010 executed by the defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1, on the ground of misrepresentation and fraud.

3. It is asserted in the application on behalf of Defendant No.2 that no averments have been made nor any particulars disclosed in respect of how the fraud has been played on the plaintiff. It is a settled law that in case of fraud and undue influence, the pleadings have to set forth full particulars so that they can be decided accordingly. The general allegations are insufficient to amount to an averment of fraud. In the present case, there is not even a whisper of any allegation or material facts or particulars from where any inference of a fraud can be made. Mere claim of a fraud is not sufficient.

4. Order VI Rules 2 and 4 of CPC, 1908 mandates that in case the party relies on misrepresentations, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence, particulars with dates and items are to be stated in the pleading as a necessary factual matrix. The provisions are couched in mandatory terms. It is asserted that the Plaint is absolutely bereft of any material particulars in regard to alleged misrepresentation and fraud and is couched in most vague and ambiguous terms.

5. It is further submitted that in Paragraph No. 29 of the Suit, the valuation for the purpose of Partition is fixed at Rs. 2,20,00,000/-, and for the Declaration of the Sale Deed as null and void at Rs. 12,00,000/-. The plaintiff has claimed herself to be in constructive possession and has paid the court fee of Rs. 20/-. A false averment has been made by the plaintiff about having constructive possession when she has not even visited the property since her marriage on 22nd September, 2018 when she had physically moved out except for a single day i.e., 13th November, 2020 on the demise of their grandmother. The plaintiff has never been in possession of the property. There is no basis for claiming the constructive possession.

6. It is submitted that ad valorem court fee in the sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- is required to be paid by the plaintiff. In case, she fails to pay the requisite court fee, the Suit is liable to be rejected. Hence, the present petition has been made for rejection of the Suit.

7. The plaintiff in her Reply has denied that no specific pleadings have been made in respect of fraud committed by the defendants. It is asserted that the modus operandi and the illicit benefits reaped and wrongful gains made by the defendants by committing the fraud as well as causing wrongful losses to the plaintiff, have been clearly mentioned. Even the right to file the criminal complaint pertaining to fraud has been specifically reserved in Paragraph Nos. 16 to 20 of the Plaint.

8. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the plaint