The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for precise pleading of material facts related to fraud, coercion, and undue influence, and the need to prove such material facts to establish a plea of fraud, coercion, or undue influence.

Dev Darshan Sud, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge in favour of the Appellant-Plaintiff granting a decree for declaration to the effect that he along with proforma Defendants is owners in possession of the land owned and possessed by late Shri Chuhru Ram to the extent as described in the plaint having inherited the same by virtue of a registered Will dated 16.8.1982 Ext. PW-2/A.

2. The appeal preferred to the learned District Judge, by the contesting Respondent Smt. Asso Devi succeeded and the judgment of the learned trial Court was set aside. The Plaintiff is now in appeal.

3. The appeal was admitted on 18.5.1996 on the following substantial question of law:

Whether the District Judge while reversing the well considered decree and judgment of trial Court has misread and mis- appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record to hold that the Will Ext. DW-2/A in favour of Appellants-Plaintiffs was not valid will being shrouded in suspicious circumstances.

4. The Plaintiff instituted a suit praying for a decree of declaration to the effect that he along with Harpal Singh and Barfi Ram are the owners in possession of the land. It was pleaded that late Shri Chuhru Ram was not married to Respondent-contesting Defendant Smt. Asso Devi and that she was living with him as his concubine. Before his death, he executed a Will Ext. PW-2/A in favour of Plaintiff on 16.8.1982 which was duly registered. A further allegation against the Plaintiff is that an unregistered Will dated 14.12.1983 was alleged to have executed by the deceased in favour of the contesting Defendant Smt. Asso Devi. Proceeding for its registration were instituted before the Sub-Registrar who dismissed the case for default on 25.3.1987, but granted registration on 29.7.1988. This Will Ext. DW-2.A, according to the Plaintiff is forged and was never executed by late Chuhru Ram. As a consequence it was pleaded that the estate of Chuhru Ram cannot abide by the directions as issued in this Will. An alternative averment has been made that the Will has been made by fraud, collusion and misrepresentation as it was got prepared by the Defendants-Respondents in collusion with scribe and the marginal witnesses. They are related to each other and the disposition of the Appellant to this Will is invalid. The suit of the Plaintiff has been resisted by the Defendants on a number of grounds. It is pleaded that Ext. DW-2/A which is Will is last testament and that the averments to the contrary made by the Plaintiff are not correct.

5. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the Plaintiff holding that the execution of the Will Ext. DW-2/A was not validly executed. Learned trial Court conjectured that the document was forged and is outcome of fraud and collusion. How this collusion was reached is not clear from the judgment. In any event, the discussion preceding this finding shows that learned trial Court held that late registration of the Will, the scribe of the will being related to the grantee did not at all establish that the execution of the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that the learned trial Court was in error in reversing the well conversant judgment of the trial Court. He submits that circumstances as noticed and evaluated by the learned trial Court have been light brushed aside. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be accepted.

7. Adverting to the first question of law which requires to be noticed and considered is that the learned trial Court has rightly held that no particulars as required under Order 6 Rule 4 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure which constitutes fraud, misrepresentation etc. have not been pleaded. The law on this point has been settled in Bis