The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Karishma Oberoi vs Ajay Kumar & Anr. consisting of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna reiterates that parties must plead the precise nature of fraud and the manner of use or the unfair advantage that has been obtained.
Facts
Defendant No. 2/Abhishek Oberoi filed this application under O7 Rule 11 (a), (c), and (d) read with Section 151 CPC to dismiss the Plaint. Abhishek Oberoi is Karishma Oberoi (Plaintiff) 's brother, and Ajay Kumar is her uncle (Defendant No. 1). The plaintiff sued to annul the 2010 Sale Deed issued by defendant no.2 in favor of defendant no.1, citing misrepresentation and fraud.
The plaintiff claimed defendant no. 2 sold the Shimla property without her consent but promised to reimburse her Rs.15,00,000/- upon her marriage. After then, the plaintiff and defendant no.2 agreed that he would pay her Rs.15,00,000/- for the Shimla property if she gave it to him. It was also agreed that the plaintiff would get their grandmother's gold jewelry. Defendant no. 2 pledged to provide the plaintiff Rs. 1,00,00,000/- during her wedding if he collected Rs. 2,00,00,000/- from Defendant no. 1. The plaintiff claimed that defendant No. 2 in collusion with defendant No. 1 defrauded her by transferring the suit property, which originally belonged to her father, based on an alleged Agreement to Sell in defendant No. 1's name. Defendant No. 1 then allegedly executed a Sale Deed in favor of defendant No. 2.
Contentions Made
Plaintiff: It was claimed that the defendants' modus operandi, illegal earnings, and wrongful gains from the fraud, as well as the plaintiff's unlawful losses, were clearly stated. Even the right to file a criminal charge for fraud was reserved in certain paragraphs of the Plaint.
Defendant: It was argued that no allegations or details were presented about the plaintiff's deception. In cases of fraud and undue influence, pleadings must include full details to be decided. Relying on O6 Rules 2 and 4 CPC, it was argued that the Plaint was unclear and ambiguous and lacked significant details about deception and fraud.
Observations of the Court
The Bench, relying on O6R4 CPC noted that details of the alleged fraud need to be specifically mentioned in the plaint. Relying on Afsar Sheikh & Ors. vs. Soleman Bibi & Ors, Bishundeo Narain vs. Seogeni Rai, Ladli Prasad Jaiswal vs. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd & Ors., Varanseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya vs. Dr. Rajkishore Tripathi and A.C. Ananthaswamy & Ors. vs. Boraiah (dead) by LRs it observed the following:
“The allegations in respect of fraud have to be stated with specificity, particularity and with precision, and use of general words such as fraud would not be enough… general allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice… simply claiming some kind of fraud bereft of any particulars would not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of O6R4 CPC.”
“The object of pleading is to bring the parties to a trial by concentrating their attention on the matter in dispute so as to narrow the controversy to precise issues and to give notice to the parties of the nature of testimony required on either side in support of their cases. A vague or general plea cannot serve this purpose; the parties pleading must, therefore, be required to plead the precise nature of fraud and the manner of use or the unfair advantage has been obtained.”
Thus, it held that fraud requires a high level of proof. In this case, the court opined that the plaintiff had neither described the nature of fraud nor pleaded any facts from which fraud could be inferred. The Sale Deed indicated that Defendant No.2 owned the suit property. There was no need to seek partition, hence the claim was baseless. Also, the plaintiff was silent about their agreement on Shimla property, and the claim for jewellery lacked details and a cause of action.
Judgment
The Bench held that since the plaintiff was not able to disclose any cause of action in her Plaint for any of the reliefs claimed by way of this Suit, this Application under O7 Rule 11 (a), (c) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC was allowed, and the Suit was thereby rejected.
Case: Karishma Oberoi vs Ajay Kumar & Anr.
Citation: CS(OS) 637/2021
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Decided on: 8th December 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
