The burden of proof rests on the dominant party in a transaction with a vulnerable party to establish the voluntary and fully informed execution of the document. The law presumes against such transactions, and the dominant party must prove the fairness and reasonableness of the transaction.

Sanjay Karol, J.—The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 1.11.1995 passed by the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Civil Appeal No. 89-D/XIII-1995 titled as Kesar Singh v. Surjeet Singh and another, allowing the defendants appeal and reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.8.1994 passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class (I), Dharamshala, District Kangra, (H.P.) in Civil Suit No. 280 of 1986 titled as Surjeet Singh and another v. Kesar Singh.

2. The suit was filed by the original plaintiff Smt. Giano Devi on 17.5.1986 before the Sub Judge 1st Class (I), Dharamshala, District Kangra and was registered as Civil Suit No. 280 of 1986 titled as Giano Devi v. Kesar Singh and Shri Vakil Singh. During its pendency, Smt. Giano Devi died and, therefore, by virtue of the Will dated 5.8.1983 (Ext.P-1), the sons of Vakil Singh were substituted as plaintiffs and Vakil Singh (defendant No. 2) was deleted from the array of parties. Therefore, the parties to the suit, on the date of its decision was as under:— "SURJEET SINGH AND HARJEET SINGH SONS OF VAKIL SINGH Plaintiffs VERSUS KESAR SINGH SON OF GORKHU Defendant."

3. For the purpose of convenience, the present appellants herein are referred to as the plaintiffs’; the original plaintiff is referred to as Smt. Giano Devi. Original defendant No. 1 Kesar Singh is referred to as Kasar Singh, original defendant No. 2 Vakil Singh as Vakil Singh and since Kesar Singh has also died, his legal heirs, the present respondents are referred to as respondents.

4. The present appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of laws:— "1. Whether the gift deeds dated February 22, 1986 are the outcome of fraud, coercion, misrepresentation and undue influence built by the defendant/respondent?

2. Whether there existed a fuditiary relationship between the contracting parties to the gift deed?

3. Whether the burden of proof shifted on the defendant/respondent for proving the due execution of the gift deeds in question?

4. Whether the gifts were bad and void because of non-delivery of possession?

5. Whether the misappreciation of the evidence on record has resulted in the impugned judgment?

6. Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and decree in appeal is not sustainable in the eyes of law?"

5. Smt. Giano Devi filed a suit against Kesar Singh and Vakil Singh, defendants seeking a declaration that two gift deeds dated 22.2.1986 allegedly executed by her is a result of fraud, coercion, mis-representation and undue influence played by Kesar Singh and without knowledge, consent and free will and are illegal, inoperative, ineffective, null and void.

6. It was so pleaded that Smt. Giano Devi (original plaintiff) aged 70 years, issueless, widow was owner in possession of different parcels of land measuring 0-13-56 hects, 10-18-17 hects and 0-74-32 hects. situate at different places in Mohal Jhikla Dohb, and Mauza Dohb, Tahsil and District Kangra, H.P. She was the only child of her parents and her father predeceased her mother. Her mother had adopted and treated Shri Vakil Singh (defendant No. 2) as her son ever since he was 16 years of age. For over 19 to 20 years he was looking after them and also taking care of their properties. In fact her mother, out of love, affection and services rendered by him had gifted her land measuring 38 kanals in his favour. On 26.3.1985 her last rites were also performed by him. Plaintiff was the sole heir of the left out estate of her mother and she was also looked after by him. Since the life time of her mother, plaintiff had two houses one at village Charri and another at village Dohb where she stayed routinely and Shri Vakil Singh had been looking after her and providing all necessities of life including medical treatment.

7. While defendant No. 2 Vakil Singh was away for few days, defendant No. 1 Shri Kesar Singh hatched a conspiracy to grab her land and through his women folk allured and influenced her to le