JUDGMENT -D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was a pilot for Air India and he was insured with the plaintiff company for a sum of Rs. 3, 00,000/-. During the course of his employment, the defendant suffered bodily injury or suffering from illness and therefore after his medical examination, initially he was declared a temporary disabled person and thereafter on his examination by Air Force Central Medical Examination (A.F.C.M.E.), New Delhi, he was declared permanently medically unfit for flying duties due to Coronary Artery Disease. Therefore after the aforesaid illness was confirmed by the authority approved by the plaintiff, the plaintiff paid Rs. 2, 28,000/- from out of the policy Rs. 72, 000/ being already paid- and consequently the entire amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the said policy was paid to the defendant. 2.It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time of payment of Rs. 2,28,000/- the defendant voluntarily and on his own accord gave an undertaking/indemnity bond to the plaintiff agreeing thereby to repay to the plaintiff sum of Rs. 2, 28,000/- in the event of regaining his flying licence either in India or abroad. According to the plaintiff, the defendant thereafter regained his flying licence therefore the plaintiff has become entitled to recover amount of Rs. 2,28,000/- for which the present suit is filed. 3.On the other hand it is the case of the defendant that firstly the plaintiff had no right to obtain such indemnity bond from the defendant and secondly from the circumstances mentioned in the written statement and revealed by the correspondence and the factual position at the time of execution of the indemnity bond, the same indemnity bond came to be executed by him under undue influence and coercion and that at any rate it is not a document voluntarily executed by the defendant and hence the plaintiffs have no right to file the suit or claim any amount from the defendant. 4.On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the following issues were framed by me on 11-1-1999: ISSUES 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in the principal amount of Rs. 2, 28,000/- along with interest thereon as per the statement of claim annexed at Exhibit 1 to the plaint ? 4.On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the following issues were framed by me on 11-1-1999: ISSUES 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in the principal amount of Rs. 2, 28,000/- along with interest thereon as per the statement of claim annexed at Exhibit 1 to the plaint ? 2) Whether the defendant proves that undertaking dated 3-6-1989 (being Exhibit B to the plaint) is not an indemnity bond/ security as pleaded in paragraph 8 of the written statement? 3) Whether the defendant proves that the undertaking dated 3-6-1989 (being Exhibit B to the plaint) was obtained by undue influence/duress as pleaded in paragraph 8 of the written statement? 4) Whether the defendant proves that the plaint discloses no cause of action and/or is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs as pleaded in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the written statement? 5) What Order and Decree? 5.However, when the matter was on board for recording evidence, both the parties agreed that the questions involved in the suit and the question raised by the defendant could be decided on the basis of the documents already filed and no oral evidence was required. Therefore, arguments at length of the plaintiff's advocate as well as of the defendant's advocate were heard by me, not only with reference to the pleadings of the parties but also with reference to the documents relied upon. 6.It was firstly contended by the Counsel for the plaintiff that the indemnity bond was obtained by the plaintiff as per their usual practice in order to protect their interest. Secondly, it was contended that the plea of the defendant regarding execution of the indemnity bond under undue influence or coercion could not at all to be entertained and considered by the Court because no particulars in that regard as required under Order VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure were given by the defendant anywhere in the written statement. It was further contended that the pleadings of the defendant regarding undue influence and coercion as raised in the written statement were not in accordance with the provisions of the law and High Court Rules and therefore the Court could not at all consider the plea of the defendant in that regard. Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon certain authorities of the Supreme Court in support of its contention. Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon certain authorities of the Supreme Court in support of its contention. It was further contended by the plaintiff's advocate that the indemnity bond came to be obtained from the defendant after the defendant asked the plaintiff as to what was the procedure to be followed by them or adopted by them for getting the amount of insurance and it is only after this request of the defendant that the plaintiff called upon him to execute the undertaking i.e. the indemnity bond. It was also contended by the plaintiffs advocate that before obtaining indemnity bond the plaintiff had issued cheque to the defendant and it could not therefore be said that the indemnity bond was obtained under threat of withholding of payment by the plaintiff. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the indemnity bond was separate contract in itself and not concerned with the earlier contract or agreement of insurance and since the defendant voluntarily on his own free will entered into agreement i.e indemnity bond, he was bound by the same. Counsel for the plaintiff also contended that the indemnity bond was an agreement depending on certain contingencies i.e acquisition of licence afresh by the defendant and it was altogether a different agreement and since the defendant had not taken any steps under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act for recession of contract or recession or cancellation of the document, the defendant was bound under the indemnity bond. 7.On the other hand it was contended by the Counsel for the defendant that because of the illness of the defendant his being declared temporarily unfit, his being subjected to all sorts of medical examination to the satisfaction of the plaintiff and his being out of the employment and being paid some paltry amount by the insurance company were the circumstances borne out by the record to substantiate the plea of the defendant that he satisfied the requirement of law regarding the plaintiff being in a dominating position to influence the decision making power of the defendant. It was also contended that the payment of the amount of Rs. It was also contended that the payment of the amount of Rs. 2,28,000/- by the plaintiff was a condition for execution of the indemnity bond and if the defendant in the above described mental and physical condition had not conceded to the requirement of the plaintiff regarding execution of the indemnity bond, the plaintiffs were in a position to withhold the payment of the insurance policy. This was therefore sufficient for the defendant to prove exercise of undue influence and no particulars more than this were necessary to be given by the defendant. It was also contended by the defendant's Counsel that the original insurance agreement or insurance policy was for payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- and once the plaintiff accepted the report of approved medical board, namely, Air Force Central Medical Examination Board (A.F.C.M.E), New Delhi, the plaintiffs were under statutory and legal obligation to pay the defendant the remaining amount of Rs. 2,28,000/- under the policy of insurance and this statutory obligation could not be made or converted into a consideration for the execution of the indemnity bond and consequently the indemnity bond was not at all a concluded agreement and was not at all enforceable against the defendant. It was further pointed out by the Counsel for the defendant that whether the plaintiffs were following practice of obtaining similar indemnity bonds from other pilots was absolutely irrelevant because the right to do so must flow from certain authority given to the plaintiff under the original agreement with the defendant or under the provisions of law and since according to the defendant, the plaintiff had no authority under the policy of insurance, the obtaining of the indemnity bond is of no consequence and does not give any right to the plaintiff to recover any moneys from the defendant. 8.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the Counsels and I am recording my findings on the issues as given below with reasonings thereafter: ISSUES FINDINGS 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled...?No. 2. Whether the defendant proves.....?Yes. 3. Whether the defendant proves.....?Yes. 4. Whether the defendant proves.....?Yes. 5. What order decree? Suit dismissed with costs. REASONS 9.The crucial question is whether the plaintiff had any legal and statutory authority to obtain the indemnity bond from the defendant of the nature which is filed in the plaint at page 19. Whether the defendant proves.....?Yes. 3. Whether the defendant proves.....?Yes. 4. Whether the defendant proves.....?Yes. 5. What order decree? Suit dismissed with costs. REASONS 9.The crucial question is whether the plaintiff had any legal and statutory authority to obtain the indemnity bond from the defendant of the nature which is filed in the plaint at page 19. Counsel for the plaintiff could not point out any such authority either flowing from the contract of the insurance policy or from any statutory provision. He repeatedly asserted that it was the practice of the plaintiff to obtain such undertakings in order to protect their interest. The Court is not concerned with any such practise, unless the practise has the approval or sanction of law or the practise is flowing out of mutual agreement concluded and entered into between the parties. Therefore it has to be held that obtaining of this indemnity bond was not supported by any legal provision, statutory provision or contractual obligation or a right arising or accruing in favour of the plaintiff under the agreement. 10.The other important question that arises for consideration is whether this indemnity bond was obtained by the plaintiff under undue influence or coercion. The issue No. 2 was framed with reference to paragraph 8 of the written statement and therefore arguments at length were advanced by Counsel for the plaintiff not only with reference to particular issue as is framed but also with reference to the entire case of the defendant in para 8 of the written statement. It is true that as required by Order VI, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, and as required by the judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the Counsel for the plaintiff, a party is required to give particulars of undue influence and the effect of undue influence in his pleadings in order that the Court takes into consideration such a plea. I have no dispute with the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 878 (Subhas Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Das Mushib others)1 and A.I.R. 1963 S.C.1279 (Ladli Parshad Jaiswal v. The Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. Karnal others)2. The Supreme Court has in the aforesaid judgments considered the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, and the requirement of a party to give all necessary particulars when such a plea of undue influence is raised in defence. Ltd. Karnal others)2. The Supreme Court has in the aforesaid judgments considered the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, and the requirement of a party to give all necessary particulars when such a plea of undue influence is raised in defence. But while doing so the Supreme Court has also considered the definition of word 'undue influence' and has observed and held "But the object of a 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 respective cases". It has also been further held that vague and general plea can never serve this purpose and plea must be precise and all necessary particulars in support of the plea must be embodied in the pleading. This test laid down by the Supreme Court are as in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, particularly Order VI, Rule 4. 11.Question is whether the written statement lacks in material particulars so far as the defence of undue influence is concerned or whether from the reading of the written statement as a whole and from the circumstances that are pointed out or revealed in the plaint as well as in the written statement and those revealed in the documents relied upon by both the parties it can be said that the defence of undue influence raised by the plaintiff cannot at all be considered for want of particulars and my finding in this regard is in the negative. 12.The circumstances that are borne out by the Court not only in the written statement but also in the plaint are that while in service the defendant had suffered chest pain i.e Coronary Artery disease, he was therefore subjected to medical examination and initially declared temporarily disabled person was not challenged by the plaintiff. Subsequently, this finding was confirmed by Air Force Central Medical Examination Board, New Delhi and the defendant was declared permanently disabled person. This finding of the Medical Board was not challenged by the plaintiff at any time. It is not the case of the plaintiff that certificates issued by the said Board were obtained by the defendant by practising fraud or collusion with the Medical Board Authorities. This finding of the Medical Board was not challenged by the plaintiff at any time. It is not the case of the plaintiff that certificates issued by the said Board were obtained by the defendant by practising fraud or collusion with the Medical Board Authorities. The plaintiff has not at all disputed the illness and sufferings of the defendant, the cause of the illness and the resultant disability arising therefrom. Therefore it is an admitted position that when the question of payment of amount under the insurance arose the plaintiff knew that the defendant was not in that mentally sound position which a healthy and fit air pilot would be or could be. The plaintiff has also paid to the defendant sum of Rs. 72,000/- towards the temporary total disability. 13.The term undue influence has been defined under section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as under: "Undue influence" -(1) a contract is said to be induced by "undue influence" where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the Will of another- (a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or (b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress. (3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the Will of another, enters into a contract with him and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall be upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other." If this definition is applied to the facts of the present case, it will be clear that the plaintiffs were in a position to dominate the Will of the defendant. The Will of the defendant to say so was to get the amount of insurance of Rs. 3,00,000/- . The Will of the defendant to say so was to get the amount of insurance of Rs. 3,00,000/- . The payment of the said amount was in the hands of the plaintiffs. They were in a position to dictate terms to the defendant and from the position in which the defendant was placed (as discussed above), it is clear that he had no alternative but to succumb to the dominating position of the plaintiffs and to accept the terms put forth by the plaintiffs. Further it is clear that the plaintiffs were standing in fiduciary relation to the defendant. Secondly that the mental capacity of the defendant was also affected adversely at the time the defendant gave the undertaking or indemnity bond and thirdly the plaintiff treating the payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the insurance policy as the consideration for obtaining indemnity bond shows that transaction was unconscionable. Therefore this is a case where the defendant satisfies all the requirements of proving undue influence. As already observed by me in the written statement, there may not be so many particulars but the admitted facts of the case and the mental and physical condition of the defendant at that time and his need of money and the contractual obligation of the plaintiffs to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- to the defendant are sufficient to give finding in favour of the defendant that the plaintiff has used undue influence for obtaining signature of the defendant on the indemnity bond. The plaintiffs were aware that under the policy of the insurance they were bound to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 2,28,000/- to the defendant, because it was their statutory and contractual obligation and that they had no escape from the said law. 14.In this background insistence on the part of the plaintiff on the defendant to execute the indemnity bond is a condition of further payment, is nothing but a misuse of undue influence by the plaintiff on the defendant. It is true that as per the letters produced and relied upon by the plaintiff it was the defendant who asked the plaintiff as to the procedure to be followed by the plaintiff. But by writing this letter the defendant did not surrender to authority of the plaintiff nor did he agree to abide by whatever condition could be laid down by the plaintiff as a condition precedent for further payment of Rs. 2,28,000/-. But by writing this letter the defendant did not surrender to authority of the plaintiff nor did he agree to abide by whatever condition could be laid down by the plaintiff as a condition precedent for further payment of Rs. 2,28,000/-. The defendant merely wanted to know as to what formalities will have to be completed by him before getting the remaining amount under his insurance policy but taking advantage of the fact that ultimate payment of RS. 2,28,000/- could be made by the plaintiff only if the defendant conceded to the authority of the plaintiff, the plaintiff called upon him to execute the indemnity bond. 15.It is not material here that plaintiffs had handed over the cheque of Rs. 2,28,000/- to the defendant before obtaining indemnity bond. Because the plaintiffs were in a position to stop payment of that cheque if the defendant had not executed the indemnity bond. The plea of the defendant regarding undue influence is required to be accepted because there was no alternative for him but to execute the bond as required by the plaintiff otherwise he would have been required to forego his claim under the insurance and his claim to the remaining amount of Rs. 2,28,000/-. If the defendant had some other option or avenue available for recovering the amount under the insurance policy then it could not have been said that there was any undue influence by the plaintiff upon him but that the defendant was left with no alter- native and had no option but to accept to the demand of the plaintiff to execute the indemnity bond particularly when the plaintiff had no statutory, contractual or legal authority for obtaining the said indemnity bond then the only inference that can be drawn is that the defendant was required to execute the indemnity bond due to undue influence. 16.Apart from this, there is one more serious aspect to this case and that is as rightly argued by the Counsel for the defendant, there is no consideration to the agreement i.e indemnity bond. As per the Contract Act, consideration is an indispensable part of any legally enforceable contract. It is an admitted fact that payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the insurance policy by the plaintiffs to the defendant was their statutory obligation. As per the Contract Act, consideration is an indispensable part of any legally enforceable contract. It is an admitted fact that payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the insurance policy by the plaintiffs to the defendant was their statutory obligation. It has also been observed that the plaintiff had no legal authority to ask for the indemnity bond and therefore as rightly argued by the Counsel for the defendant this indemnity bond is an agreement without consideration because under no provision of law or agreement, the plaintiffs could convert the payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the defendant as a consideration for the defendants execution of indemnity bond. The indemnity bond commences as "IN" CONSIDERATION OF AFORESAID PAYMENT OF RS. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs) I CAPT.. RAM MOORJANI GIVE THE UNDERTAKING THAT:-......."It is clear from this wording that the plaintiffs had tried to exploit their position by saying Rs. 3,00,00/- as consideration of the indemnity bond, for which they had no legal or statutory or contractual authority and therefore the objection of the defendant that the indemnity bond is an agreement without consideration has got to be accepted. In order that agreement becomes legally enforceable under the Contract Act there has to be a consideration. Counsel for the plaintiff, in support of his contention and in repelling the argument of the defendant tried to rely upon the words in the indemnity bond commencing from "IN CONSIDERATION OF AFORESAID PAYMENT OF Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs) I CAPT. RAM MOORJANI GIVE THE UNDERTAKING THAT ;..........." and the understood that there was consideration for this bond and it was Rs.3,00,000. This argument of the counsel for the plaintiff that Rs. 3,00,000/- was the consideration for this indemnity bond cannot at all be accepted. 17.It is another example how the plaintiff has misused their dominating position. The plaintiff are not doing any favour to the defendant by giving him Rs. 300,000/- because they were giving the payment under the contractual obligation under the insurance policy, having accepted the final finding of the Medical Board regarding the disablement of the defendant. This payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- was a statutory and contractual liability of the plaintiff vis-a-vis the defendant but the said payment is treated by the plaintiff for their own benefit as consideration for getting the indemnity bond executed. This payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- was a statutory and contractual liability of the plaintiff vis-a-vis the defendant but the said payment is treated by the plaintiff for their own benefit as consideration for getting the indemnity bond executed. Admittedly and as discussed above, this indemnity bond is not obtained by the plaintiff pursuant to any legal or statutory authority but it is obtained by them on the basis of some practise prevailing on their part. Therefore obtaining of this indemnity bond is highly unjustified, illegal and improper and at any rate this indemnity bond is without consideration because the plaintiff had no legal authority to convert their legal liability as consideration for further fresh agreement i.e. indemnity bond. 18.Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon certain provisions of the Contract Act in support of his contention regarding free consent to the contract, agreement and has also relied upon certain letters written by the defendant. All of them become irrelevant for the aforesaid reasons and findings. Therefore, for all these reasons, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the order : ORDER Suit is dismissed with costs. *****