The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and precise pleadings of fraud, undue influence, and misrepresentation, and the mandatory requirements for cancellation of a deed of gift. It also clarifies the legal position on the transfer of coparcenary property and the presumption of joint family property in acquisitions made by individual members of the joint family.

JUDGMENT

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree passed by learned District judge, Balasore-Bhadrak in S. J. Appeal No. 99/1991, modifying the judgment and decree passed by learned Addl. Sub-ordinate Judge, balasore in O. S. No. 36 of 1988-1/119 of 1984 to certain extent, but dismissing the appeal as well as the cross-objection, the plaintiff-respondents have approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 100, CPC.

( 2 ) THE appellants are the legal representatives of deceased Sudhamani, who, as the sole plaintiff, filed O. S. No. 36 of 1988-1/119 of 1984 in the Court of the then Addl. Sub-ordinate Judge, Balasore. The said suit was one for partition. According to the plaint case the properties morefuly described in suit schedule were part and parcel Of her ancestral properties and she had a valid share therein. To appreciate the inter se disputes, it would be prudent to furnish the genealogy which is as follows : gangadhar was the common ancestor. Out of three sons of Gangadhar namely Raghunath, lokanath and Krushna, Raghunath died some time prior to 1956 while living in Jointness. He had only one married daughter Ratramani, who had also died. Thus, the branch of raghunath became extinct. Loknath died some time in the year 1976 leaving behind sudhamani, the plaintiff, as the legal heir. Krushna (Defendant No. 1) died during pendency of the suit. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are his sons and daughter. The properties as would be evident from the Record of Rights, Exts. 4 to 4/a, stood recorded in the name of the common ancestor Gangadhar. The properties covered under Exts. B to H were purchased by separate registered sale deeds by Lokanath. The remaining properties were purchased by krushna in his name and in the name of his sons (Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 ). The parties are admittedly governed under Mitakshara school of Hindu Law. It is further averred that defendants fraudulently obtained a gift deed (Ext. A) from Lokanath in respect of some of the plaint schedule properties and claimed exclusive rights. As the plaintiff was deprived of enjoying the said lands, she filed a suit for partition claiming half share in the entire plaint schedule properties.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 appeared and jointly filed their written statement repudiating the averments made in the plaint They also stoutly denied the fact that the gift deed Ext. A was obtained by fraud. They also denied the allegation that the properties were purchased by the defendants out of joint family nucleus. It is averred that out of their own income krushna and others had acquired some lands which should be treated as their self acquired properties. The defendants also disputed the assertions that the plaintiff was the daughter of Lokanath.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the defendants Lokanath was issueless and he was liking defendants 2 and 3 and had alienated some of the suit properties in their favour by executing registered gift deed (Ext. A) dated 19th November, 1967 and delivered possession of the properties covered there under to the said defendants which were exclusively possessed by them. It appears that the plaintiff had also obtained a gift deed from Lokanath vide Ext. 3 on the same day, i. e. 19th November, 1967, but then the properties covered under the said gift deed were not included in the suit schedule. It is further averred that defendant No. 1 got some money from his father-in-law. He was also doing paddy loan business and out of the said income he had purchased the properties. Defendant No. 4 filed a separate written statement, but then supporting defendants 1 to 3.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed as many as eight issues. In order to substantiate their case, the plaintiff got six witnesses examined and exhibited nine documents. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants, three witnesses were examined and thirteen documents were exhibited. After discussing the evidence, the trial court held that the plaintiff was the daughter o