JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Defendants are the Petitioners. It is unnecessary to give all details of the case. It would be sufficient to say that the Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 174 of 1960 challenged the sale deed dated 30-5-1955 executed by herself in favour Defendant No. 1 as void and not binding on her. The sale deed was assailed on two grounds (i) that it was fraudulent and was the outcome of misrepresentation; and (ii) that there were no due execution and passing of consideration. In paragraph 4 of the plaint there was an assertion that the Plaintiff was a purdanashin illiterate lady. 2. Apart from the assertion that the sale was not fraudulent and outcome of undue influence, the Defendants asserted that there was due execution and the Plaintiff signed the sale deed after fully understanding the contents thereof which were read over and explained to her before she signed it. In paragraph 9 of the written statement there was first a general denial that all the averments made in paragraph 4 of the plaint were false. There was a further denial that the Plaintiff was not a purdanashin lady. 3. It is necessary to determine on the construction of the pleadings whether the Defendants have denied that the Plaintiff is an illiterate lady. Mr. Rath concedes that there is a clear and categorical denial about the fact of Plaintiff being a purdanashin lady. In my view, the denial is equally clear and categorical with reference to the Plaintiff being an illiterate lady. Order VIII, Rules 4 and 5 are relevant in this connection. They may be quoted-- 4. Evasive denial, - Where a Defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount, but he must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof, or else set out how much he received. And if an allegation is made with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances. 5. Specific denial. And if an allegation is made with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances. 5. Specific denial. - Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the Defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. Rule 5 makes it clear that every allegation, if not denial specifically or by necessary implications shall be taken to be admitted. When the allegations is paragraph 4 of the plaint were asserted to be wholly false, all the allegations in paragraph 4 were specifically, denied and there is no question of any denial by necessary implication. After that denial it was thoroughly unnecessary for the Defendants in the written statement to have again refuted the plaint allegations word per word. The draftsman in the written statement while trying to become cleverer, has fallen into the mistake of omitting the word MURKHA in the denial portion. Taken as a whole, I am satisfied that the Defendants clearly deny the fact of Plaintiff being a purdanashin and illiterate lady. 4. On this construction, the onus in the first instance is on the Plaintiff to establish that she is a purdanashin and illiterate lady. The principle of law is wen settled that in case of a purdanashin lady, it is incumbent upon the transferee to clearly establish that she executed the document after fully understanding the contents thereof and signed it after the contents were read over and explained to her. The same principle also applies to the case of an illiterate lady. In this case, if there was an admission the part of the Defendants that the Plaintiff is either an illiterate or a purdanashin lady, then certainly the onus shall shift, to the Defendants to prove the execution. On construction of the pleading the onus is on the Plaintiff to first establish that she is either a purdanashin or an illiterate lady or both. In that case she is to begin under Order XVIII, Rules 1 and 3, CPC which lay down-- 1. Right to begin. On construction of the pleading the onus is on the Plaintiff to first establish that she is either a purdanashin or an illiterate lady or both. In that case she is to begin under Order XVIII, Rules 1 and 3, CPC which lay down-- 1. Right to begin. - The Plaintiff has the right to begin unless the Defendant admits the facts alleged by the Plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the Defendant the Plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks in which case the Defendant has the right to begin. 3. Evidence where several issues - Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party; and, in the latter case, the party beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specifically on the evidence so produced by the party beginning; but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case. In this view of the matter, the order, under revision, must be set aside and the Plaintiff must be directed to begin the case by first establishing that she is either a purdanashin or an illiterate lady. 5. The whole plaint is confused and not clear. There is allegation that the entire transaction is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. The law is well settled that the onus is on the party who alleges fraud to establish it beyond reasonable doubt, as in a criminal charge AIR 1941 93 (Privy Council) . If the Plaintiff is alleging by fraud other than one relating to the execution, she must in the first instance establish and prove the necessary elements of fraud and misrepresentation. In that case also the Plaintiff must begin and not the Defendants. 6. If the Plaintiff is alleging by fraud other than one relating to the execution, she must in the first instance establish and prove the necessary elements of fraud and misrepresentation. In that case also the Plaintiff must begin and not the Defendants. 6. It must, however, be made clear that if the Plaintiff satisfies the Court, after evidence has been gone into, that she is either a purdanashin or an illiterate lady, then the onus would shift to the Defendants to establish that, the document was read over and fully explained to her and it was thereafter that she put her signature after fully understanding the contents thereof. In many cases the burden is a shifting one. 7. A part from the discussion made above, the learned Munsif's judgment is vulnerable on the face of it. Even if the entire finding in the judgment is accepted, the judgment must be set aside. The entire finding and discussion pertained to the sole question as to whether the Plaintiff is a purdanashin lady or not. There is not a word of discussion relating to the question of illiteracy. It is conceded by Mr. Rath that so far as purdanashin aspect is concerned, there is a clear and categorical denial in the written statement. On the admitted position, therefore, the judgment cannot be sustained. 8. In the result the Civil Revision is allowed, the order dated 6-5-1963 of the learned Munsif is set aside and he is directed to dispose of the suit in the light of the observation made above within at period of three months from today. Petitioners are entitled to costs. Hearing fee of Rs. 50/-. (Rupees fifty). Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed