Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant is the plaintiff in Original Suit No.36 of 2000 filed in the Court of Munsiff, Kasargod. Defendant-respondent is her younger brother.

3. Subject matter of the suit was a deed of sale dated 7th October, 1999 executed by her in favour of the respondent. The amount of consideration was shown therein to be a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Contention of the appellant in the said suit was that the said deed of sale is vitiated by misrepresentation, undue influence, fraud and collusion as she was made to believe that she would obtain financial assistance by executing the said document. According to her, she had reposed complete faith and trust in her brother who used to visit her place often. It was also her contention that when her husband was in bed due to prolonged illness, she was taken away from her house and made to sign some documents. According to her she came to know with regard to execution of the aforementioned deed of sale when some officers of the bank visited the suit land to take measurement thereof. Respondent in his written statement however stated that the deed of sale was executed voluntarily by the appellant upon receiving the amount of consideration.

4. The learned Trial Judge in view of rival pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:

"(i) Whether the sale deed was validly executed in favour of the plaintiff?

(ii) Whether the alleged cause of action is true?"

5. Inter alia holding that the plaint does not satisfy the requirements of Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure as particulars of fraud, undue influence were not pleaded and furthermore having regard to the fact that the plaintiff had admitted in her deposition that except once the respondent had not visited her, the suit was dismissed. It was opined that the plaintiff had not been able to establish that the defendant had been in such a position so as to dominate over her will and /or the said deed of sale was executed by her under misrepresentation, undue influence or collusion. As regards execution of the sale deed, it was stated as under:

"Order VI Rule 4 and Order VI Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, makes it clear that there shall be specific pleading with sufficient particular regarding the fraud or undue influence misrepresentation etc. which is lacking in this case. I have already stated that there is no scope for any collusion in the execution of Ext. B.5. At the same time there is no sufficient material to show that the defendant was in such a position so as to dominate the will of the plaintiff, and he got executed Ext. B5 under fraud, misrepresentation, collusion and undue influence."

6. The first appellate court affirmed the said findings of the learned Munsiff noticing that

the appellant herself had deposed that the defendant had left her house about fifteen years back and came to her house only when her husband was ill. Agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Trial Judge, it was held:

"The execution of a document made to establish only if the same is denied. In this case the plaintiff admitted the signature and also execution of Ext. B5 but contended that it was obtained under undue influence, believing that she signed in papers necessary for getting government loan to the persons laid up due to illness. The evidence of DW1 and DW2 satisfactorily proved the execution of Ext. B5 deed. Ext. B2 to B4 documents would show that immediately after the execution of Ext. B5 the defendant started paying basic tax. In AIR 1976 SC 163 the Apex Court held that there shall be separate pleading about undue influence and the general allegation regarding the undue influence is not sufficient. Order VI Rule 4 and Order VI Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure make it clear that there shall be specific pleading with sufficient particular regarding the fraud or undue influence, misrepresentation etc. and absolutely no such specific pleadings are in this case and hence it has to be