KARISHMA OBEROI Vs. AJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (c) and (d) read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC, 1908") has been filed on behalf of the defendant No. 2/Abhishek Oberoi seeking rejection of the Plaint.

(2.) Facts in brief are that defendant No. 2 Abhishek Oberoi is the real brother of the plaintiff Karishma Oberoi and defendant No. 1 Ajay Kumar is her younger uncle (Phufa). The plaintiff has filed the present Suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed dtd. 10/2/2010 executed by the defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1, on the ground of misrepresentation and fraud.

(3.) It is asserted in the application on behalf of Defendant No.2 that no averments have been made nor any particulars disclosed in respect of how the fraud has been played on the plaintiff. It is a settled law that in case of fraud and undue influence, the pleadings have to set forth full particulars so that they can be decided accordingly. The general allegations are insufficient to amount to an averment of fraud. In the present case, there is not even a whisper of any allegation or material facts or particulars from where any inference of a fraud can be made. Mere claim of a fraud is not sufficient.