In a suit alleging fraud and misrepresentation, the plaintiff must plead and prove the particulars of the fraud or misrepresentation with specificity and precision.

BEHERA, J.

( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff is in appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dhenkanal, dismissing her suit for a declaration that the defendants-respondents, one of them being her husband's brother and the other two being the sons of her husband's brother, had not acquired any title over the suit land by virtue of Ext. 1, the sale deed executed by her deceased husband in the year 1968, which, according to the appellant, had been fraught with fraud and misrepresentation. The respondents, it was alleged by her, had got this deed executed by playing fraud and by misrepresenting that some modifications were necessary to the earlier deed of sale (Ex. H) executed by her husband in their favour in 1950. The appellant had also prayed for permanent injunction, for confirmation of her possession in respect of the land in suit and in the alternative, for restoration of possession to her in case it was found that she had been dispossessed. The respondents had disputed the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation and had asserted that Ex. 1 had duly been executed by the executant after knowing the contents thereof and on receipt of the consideration amount. This, in short, would represent the cases of both the parties. The details have been set out in the pleadings and in the impugned judgment.

( 2 ) ON a consideration of the evidence led by the parties to the suit, the learned Subordinate Judge did not accept the case of the appellant that the sale deed in question had been got executed by playing fraud or by misrepresentation and accordingly dismissed the suit.

( 3 ) APPEARING on behalf of the appellant, Mrs. Padhi has contended that there was evidence substantiating fraud and misrepresentation which had resulted in the execution of Ex. 1 and the learned Subordinate Judge went wrong in dismissing the suit. It has also been urged on behalf of the appellant that the fact that the appellant's husband had sold away his entire lands would show that he had not intended a sale and this would be a pointer to the practice of fraud and misrepresentation. At the hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

( 4 ) ON a careful consideration of the contentions raised by the parties in the light of evidence adduced by them, the trial Court has negatived the claims set out by the appellant for well-founded reasons mentioned in the judgment which need not be catalogued and reiterated by this Court sitting in appeal as we are at one with the learned Subordinate Judge. We could, however, indicate some broad reasons in support of our conclusion. The Supreme Court has observed and held in AIR 1967 SC 1124 (Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary):". . . . . IT is not the duty of the appellate Court when it agrees with the view of the trial Court on the evidence either to restate the effect of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court. Expression of general agreement with reasons given by the Court decision of which is under appeal would ordinarily suffice. "

( 5 ) IN a suit on the basis of fraud, the allegation of fraud must be clear, definite and specific. General allegations of fraud, unaccompanied by particulars, are insufficient to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court can take judicial notice. As has been laid down in AIR 1941 PC 93 A. L. N. Narayanan Chettyar v. Official Assignee, High Court of Rangoon, a charge of fraud, like any other charge of a criminal offence, whether made in civil or criminal proceedings, must be established beyond reasonable doubt and a finding based on suspicion and conjecture cannot be upheld.

( 6 ) A plea of fraud is to be raised in the pleadings by giving the particulars thereof as required under O. 6. R. 4 of Civil P. C. Pleadings should be concise, but they should also be precise. When fraud is charged against a defendant, it is an acknowledged rule of pleading that the plaintiff must set forth the particul