A gift deed can be set aside if it is proved that the donor was under undue influence at the time of its execution.

V. P. Gupta, J.—The plaintiff claims herself to be the owner in possession of land measuring 9 bighas and 1 biswas as detailed in the plaint and has prayed for a declaration to the effect that the gift-deed dated 19-2-1980 executed by her in favour of the defendant, Shri Charan Dass (now deceased) is a result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence and that the defendants be restrained by permanent injunction from interfering with her possession of the suit land. In the alternative, the plaintiff has claimed the possession of the suit land.

2. It is alleged that the plaintiff is an illiterate, old woman with low intelligence and has been deserted by her husband. There is no body to look after her. She filed a suit in the year 1978 against Hari Ram and Smt. Johmi Devi in the court of Senior Sub Judge Kulu and engaged Shri Charan Dass (deceased defendant) as her counsel. Shri Charan Dass wielded considerable influence on her and was in a position to influence her judgment, Shri Charan Dass was also her counsel in a criminal litigation pending between her and Hari Ram and others in Kulu Courts.

3. The plaintiff was called to Kulu by Shri Charan Dass on 19-2-1980 and she was taken to one or two courts. The plaintiff had full faith in Shri Charan Dass and did not understand as to what she was doing at the instance of Shri Charan Dass. After about a month, the plaintiff came to know that Shri Charan Dass had got a gift-deed executed in his favour from her. There after she came to know that a special power of attorney was also got executed from her in favour of one Roshan Lal. By this deed, said Roshan Lal was authorised to give statements before revenue officers for mutation purposes. It is also alleged that Roshan Lal is the father of Shri Krishan Gopal, Advocate Kulu, who was also an attesting witness of the gift-deed. The mutation on the basis of the gift-deed was sanctioned on 6-3-1980 in another village in the absence of the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff came to know about the fraud committed upon her, and she approached Shri Charan Dass to get the gift-deed cancelled. Shri Charan Dass, however, refused to do so. It is alleged that the recitals in the gift deed are wrong and that Shri Charan Dass never helped the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever except for the fact that he was her counsel. It is further alleged that the gifted land has fruit bearing apple trees and the disputed property is very valuable, and that there was no occasion for the plaintiff to execute any gift deed. The gift deed is challenged as being a sham transaction and having come in existence as a result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. The plaintiff claims that the gift deed is a void document and does not confer any title upon the defendants.

5. Vide order dated 8-6-1981 the plaintiff was allowed to file the suit as an indigent person,

6. The defendants contested the suit. It is alleged that the plaintiff is being financed by one Hari Ram and that she is estopped from filing the suit by her acts, omission and commission. The suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and the plaintiff has no right to challenge the gift deed which was executed by her out of her free will. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has not given full particulars of the fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence etc. On merits the claim of the plaintiff is contested and all the allegations of the plaint are denied.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 7-7-1981 :

1. Whether the suit is correctly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed property ? If not, with what effect ? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff executed the gift deed dated 19-2-1980 in favour of the defendant ? OPD

4. Whether the suit is bad for want of full particulars with respect to fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation? If so, with what effect? OPD

5