So, it is clear that even in a case where the defendant does not take a plea that fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, etc., alleged by the plaintiff against him are vague, the Court should insist on the plaintiff to place on record the specific and precise details of those charges. In Narayanan v. Official Assignee , AIR 1941 PC 93, the Privy Council held that 'fraud', like any other offence, must be established beyond reasonable doubt and that a finding as to fraud cannot be based on suspicion and conjecture. The Supreme Court in Bishundeo v. Seogeni Rai , [1951]2 SCR 548, held that in cases of fraud, undue influence or coercion, parties pleading them must set out full particulars thereof, and that such cases have to be decided only on the particulars as alleged in the pleadings, and that there can be no departure from the pleadings, in evidence and that general allegations, in however strong a language they may be couched, are insufficient to amount to an averment of plea of fraud, etc. The said decision was followed by the Supreme Court subsequently in V.S. Vishwavidyalaya v. Rajkishore , (1977) ILLJ 85 SC. The averments in the plaint with regard to fraud and (or) misrepresentation allegedly played in execution of Ex.B4 by the defendants on the deceased, and the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in proof of those averments have to be examined in the light of the above decisions.
