Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. Both the appeals arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.166 of 2003 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to, as arrayed in the suit. The sole plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of late Raj Bahadur and Smt.Ahilya Bahadur. The plaintiff is the third among the brothers. He filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of Schedule-I, admeasuring 81 sq.yards, and Schedule-II, admeasuring 1026 sq.yards into four equal shares and allotment of one share each to him and the defendants. He has also prayed for the relief of declaration to the effect that the gift deed, dated 10-11-1999, registered before the Senior Sub-Registrar, Gulbarga, by their mother, Ahilya Bahadur, in favour of the 3rd defendant, their youngest brother is illegal, fraudulent and null and void, and for appointment of a Commissioner to partition the properties by metes and bounds. He pleaded that their mother was the absolute owner of property in Schedule-I, being premises in Door No.4-8-300, at Gowliguda, Hyderabad, comprised of ground + first floors, in an area of 81 sq.yards; and Schedule-II, comprising of two premises i.e. house Nos. 2-247 and 2-248, at Jagat Locality, Main Road, Opposite Town Hall, Gulbarga, Karnataka State, in an area of 1026 sq.yards with structures therein. It was pleaded that their mother died on 23-03-2003 and before her death, she executed a Will, on 17-05-2002, bequeathing the property in Schedule-II in equal shares to all the sons. He stated that the 3rd defendant brought into existence, a gift deed, dated 10-11-1999, through fraudulent means, in respect of part of Schedule-II, i.e. premises bearing No.2-247, and that the same is not valid in law, and nor does it give rise to any rights in favour of the 3rd defendant. It was also mentioned that the improbability of the execution of the gift deed by their mother is evident from the fact that, their mother had the habit of noting down the important events in her life book, and the execution of the gift is not mentioned therein. Other relevant facts were also pleaded. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement, sailing with the plaintiff. Other relevant facts were also pleaded. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement, sailing with the plaintiff. They too assailed the validity of the gift deed, dated 10-11-1999, in favour of the 3rd defendant. The actual contest of the suit was by the 3rd defendant. He stated that, out of the four sons of their parents, he alone was residing at Gulbarga and plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 were residing at Hyderabad, by virtue of their employment, or other avocations. According to him, their mother was living at Gulbarga and he was looking after her. It was pleaded that their mother, Ahilya Bahadur, executed the gift deed, dated 10-11-1999, out of her free will, love and affection towards him, that too in respect of half of the property at Gulbarga. He has also stated that the so-called Will deed, dated 17-05-2002, relied upon by the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 is a fabricated one, and that it has no legal enforceability. An objection was also raised to the effect that the validity of the gift cannot be considered in a suit for partition. He asserted that if the plaintiff so wanted, he ought to have filed a separate suit, for that purpose. He stated that he has no objection for partition of the entire Schedule-I, and house bearing No.2-248 in Schedule-II, of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares, and that the property in house No.2-247, in Schedule-II, has become his absolute property, on being gifted by his mother. Through its judgment dated 24-04-2009, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree, directing that the entire property in Schedule-I and part of Schedule-II, being premises No.2-248, be divided into four equal parts, and one part each be allotted to the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3. The relief of declaration that the gift deed, dated 10-11-1999 as illegal and null and void was turned down. The plaintiff filed C.C.C.A.No.85 of 2009, feeling aggrieved by the denial of relief, as to the part of the property in Schedule-II, i.e. 2-248. Defendants 1 and 2 filed C.C.C.A.No.108 of 2009 with the same grievance. Sri K.K. Waghray, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri Arun Kumar Lathkar, learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 submit that the gift deed, Ex.B-1 was brought into existence by the 3rd defendant through fraudulent means. Defendants 1 and 2 filed C.C.C.A.No.108 of 2009 with the same grievance. Sri K.K. Waghray, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri Arun Kumar Lathkar, learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 submit that the gift deed, Ex.B-1 was brought into existence by the 3rd defendant through fraudulent means. They submit that taking advantage of the old age of their mother, the 3rd defendant knocked away the substantial extent of the property, through Ex.B-1. They contend that the trial Court did not take into account, the consistent and reliable evidence, adduced on their behalf, and denied the relief to a substantial extent. They further submit that the view expressed by the trial Court about the purport of Rule 4 of Order VI C.P.C., is not correct, and once a specific allegation was made in the plaint, that the decree was procured through fraudulent means, rest of it was to be supplemented in the evidence. According to them, such evidence has been adduced. They further submit that the collection of the rent or payment of taxes, or for that matter, any steps taken by defendant No.3, vis-à-vis the property at Gulbarga was, for and on behalf of all the four brothers, and that he was not entitled to claim the property, exclusively. They have urged that, late Ahilya Bahadur, the mother of the parties, had the habit of writing important events of her life in a note book/diary, marked as Ex.A-5, and the very fact that nothing was stated about the gift, in that book, discloses that she did not execute the same. Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the 3rd defendant, on the other hand, submits that except making vague statement that Ex.B-1 was procured through fraud and undue influence, no facts whatever were mentioned to substantiate the allegation. He submits that while Rule 1 of Order VI C.P.C. requires the pleadings to be concise and specific, Rule 4 thereof mandates that whenever plea of fraud or undue influence is raised, a detailed account thereof must be furnished and that the plaintiff thoroughly failed in this front. He submits that while Rule 1 of Order VI C.P.C. requires the pleadings to be concise and specific, Rule 4 thereof mandates that whenever plea of fraud or undue influence is raised, a detailed account thereof must be furnished and that the plaintiff thoroughly failed in this front. He contends that fraud, if at all was in making an attempt to bring about a Will, Ex.A-1, said to have been executed by the mother of the parties, and that having failed in that behalf, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 made a vain attempt to discredit the gift deed, Ex.B-1. He submits that Ex.A-5 was neither a diary, nor the important events in the life of Smt. Ahilya Bahadur were noted therein. He further submits that absence of any reference to Ex.A-1, in Ex.A-5 would substantiate the same. Though the suit is filed by the third brother, for partition, the dispute ultimately turned to be the one, between the three elder brothers, on one side, and the youngest, on the other. The trial Court framed the following issues, for its consideration: 1) “Whether the plaintiff and defendants are entitled for partition of the suit schedule property at 1/4th share each, as prayed for? 2) Whether the gift deed dated 10.11.1999 in favour of defendant No.3 is valid?” On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and DW-1, the 1st defendant, has also supported the case of the plaintiff. Exs.A-1 to A-5 were filed on their behalf. The oral evidence on behalf of the 3rd defendant comprised of depositions of DWs 1 to 4; and Exs.B-1 to B-26 were filed by him. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence before it, the trial Court partly decreed the suit, as indicated above. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration before us, viz., 1) Whether the plaintiff or for that matter, defendants 1 and 2 have proved the plea that the gift deed, Ex.B-1, is tainted with fraud and undue influence; and 2) Whether the 3rd defendant has proved the execution of Ex.B-1 in his favour, to the satisfaction of the Court. Point No.1: Though an attempt is made by the plaintiff to portray that Ahilya Bahadur executed a Will in respect of the property in Schedule-II, at Gulbarga, not much emphasis was relied upon it. Point No.1: Though an attempt is made by the plaintiff to portray that Ahilya Bahadur executed a Will in respect of the property in Schedule-II, at Gulbarga, not much emphasis was relied upon it. In a way, the Will, Ex.A-1, even if proved, would only accord with the intestate succession. It appears to have been pressed into service, only to buttress their contention vis-à-vis Ex.B-1. It is pertinent to mention that the learned counsel for the plaintiff did not canvass the finding of the trial Court, about the validity of the Will, Ex.A-1. The record discloses that out of four sons of late Raj Bahadur and Smt. Ahilya Bahadur, three elder sons are residing in Hyderabad and Secunderabad, by virtue of their employment and avocation, whereas the youngest son, i.e. the 3rd defendant, was residing at Gulbarga. Ahilya Bahadur died on 23-03-2003. She is said to have executed a gift deed, Ex.B-1, 3 ½ years earlier thereto, i.e. 10-11-1999. The ground pleaded by the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 in their challenge to Ex.B-1 is that, it was procured by fraud and undue influence. Two aspects arise for consideration, viz., whether there is a proper pleading in the plaint, about fraud, and b) whether the facts pleaded by the parties were proved, as required in law. The pleadings in a suit are required to be precise, and details are need to be supplemented in the evidence. A bare perusal of Rule 1 of Order VI C.P.C., discloses this. However, when it comes to the plea of fraud, misrepresentation, or similar factors, that vitiates any transaction, Rule 4 thereof mandates that, details must be furnished. Rule 4 of Order VI C.P.C. reads, “O.VI R.4: Particulars to be given where necessary.— In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of truest, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading.” There is a strong reason behind this. Whenever a plaintiff pleads fraud and other similar factors, the defendant must know as to how and on what basis the plaintiff arrived at conclusion. He must also know the acts and omissions attributed to him, so that he can frame his defence. Whenever a plaintiff pleads fraud and other similar factors, the defendant must know as to how and on what basis the plaintiff arrived at conclusion. He must also know the acts and omissions attributed to him, so that he can frame his defence. If what is stated in the plaint, as constituting fraud; is true, wholly or in part, the defendant may concede, or he may make an attempt to explain that, even if taken as true, those acts and omissions do not constitute fraud or misrepresentation. It would also be open to the defendant to plead that the facts pleaded by the plaintiff in that behalf are not true. The defendant cannot be kept in a dark, or left to assume as to what may have weighed with the plaintiff to allege that he, i.e. the defendant, has committed fraud, or resorted to misrepresentation. The law in this behalf is fairly well settled. Reference in this context may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court, in RAMESH B. DESAI AND OTHERS V. BIPIN VADILAL MEHTA AND OTHERS (2006) 5 SCC 638 ). Though no abstract principle can be laid, the purport of the Rule 4 can certainly be understood, as explained above. If the plaint, in the instant case, is examined on this touchstone, it becomes clear that the Rule 4 was not complied with. The only manner in which, the plea of fraud was raised is this: “…In fact, the Defendant No.3 has set up a false plea of a Gift being executed by mother during her life time in his favour under which according to defendant No.3, half of the property at Gulbarga was given to him under the gift made by the mother. The Plaintiff denies the truthfulness, legality and validity of the so called gift and the defendant No.3 have no manner of right to claim the property at Gulbarga on the strength of any such alleged gift…” “…If at all any such gift deed is there, the said gift is neither valid nor binding and the Plaintiff reserves his right of taking appropriate plea in the event of any such document being placed by Defendant No.3…” It is pertinent to mention here that even the words “fraud”, “misrepresentation” and the like, were not mentioned in the plaint, much less, the details were furnished. It is only through an amendment to the plaint, in the year 2007, that an attempt was made to elaborate the plea on this. Paragraph 9, which was added through the amendment; reads, “9(a) The Plaintiff questions the truthfulness, genuinity and validity of the alleged gift deed bearing document No.4210 of 1999-2000, dated 11.11.1999 registered at Senior Sub-Registrar, Gulbarga and the said document is nothing but an outcome of fraud and misrepresentation. The alleged gift deed is neither valid nor creates any rights or interest in favour of Defendant No.3. Therefore, the alleged gift deed is liable to be declared as null and void and fraudulent and illegal.” Except that the word “fraudulent” was employed at the fag end of the paragraph, not a single fact, which constitutes fraud, was mentioned. Obviously for this reason, the trial Court did not frame any issue, touching upon the plea of fraud. The occasion for us to frame a point has arisen on account of the fact that vehement argument was advanced by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2, on this aspect. Assuming that the pleading in the plaint has reflected adequate details of fraud, it needs to be examined as to whether the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 have proved them. It hardly needs any mention that apart from the general burden on a plaintiff to prove the facts pleaded by him, Section 104 of the Evidence Act squarely puts the burden upon the person, who pleads fraud or other similar factors, to prove them, without even giving any scope for shifting of the onus, much less burden. The evidence of PW-1 and DW-1 is hardly of any use in this regard. PWs 2 and 3 are examined in relation to Ex.A-1. Not a single witness was examined to prove that defendant No.3 has resorted to any acts of fraud or misrepresentation against their mother. It is not as if the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are strangers to Gulbarga. If the gift was fraudulent, they could have explained the witnesses in elation thereto. It is a matter of record that Ahilya Bahadur, the mother of the parties, resided at Gulbarga and it was the 3rd defendant alone, who was looking after her, at the old age. If the gift was fraudulent, they could have explained the witnesses in elation thereto. It is a matter of record that Ahilya Bahadur, the mother of the parties, resided at Gulbarga and it was the 3rd defendant alone, who was looking after her, at the old age. Being the absolute owner of the entire property held by the family, it is but natural for her to reward a son, who served her. That part, the 3rd defendant was taking care of the family interests at Gulbarga, their native place, while rest of the three brothers were in Hyderabad. The extra amount of affection of a mother towards the youngest child is a matter of common knowledge. Therefore, if one takes into account the fact that the 3rd defendant a) is the youngest of the four sons, b) remained in Gulbarga, while others migrated to a Metropolitan City like, Hyderabad and, c) was looked after and served the mother at her old age; the execution of gift deed, Ex.B-1, by Ahilya Bahadur in favour of the 3rd defendant cannot be said to be unnatural. Therefore, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 failed to plead or prove the factors, such as fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the 3rd defendant, in relation to Ex.B-1. Point No.2: Even if the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 have failed in their effort to challenge Ex.B-1, the burden to establish the same rested upon the 3rd defendant. The reason is that, in the absence of Ex.B-1, the property would devolve upon all the four sons in equal shares, and was liable to be partitioned accordingly. The gift deed, Ex.B-1 is in respect of about half of the property, comprised in Schedule-II, i.e. house No.2-247 situated at Gulbarga. To prove the gift deed, Ex.B-1, the 3rd defendant deposed himself as DW-2 and examined two attestors as DWs 3 and 4. The manner in which Ahilya Bahadur expressed her desire to execute the gift deed; how an advocate, acquainted with the family, was called, to prepare the deed, and how the deed was attested by DWs 3 and 4, after the contents of the gift deed, were explained to Ahilya Bahadur; were deposed, in detail. Not a single circumstance, to doubt the credibility of their evidence, was elicited. Not a single circumstance, to doubt the credibility of their evidence, was elicited. Every factor that is required in law, particularly Section 68 of the Evidence Act was proved to the satisfaction of the Court. An attempt was made to disbelieve Ex.B-1, on the ground that reference thereof was not made in Ex.A-5. The case of the plaintiff is that Ex.A-5 is the note book/diary, in which Ahilya Bahadur wrote every important event in her life, and nothing was stated about the gift, in that. We have carefully gone through Ex.A-5. It is a small note book and not a diary. Some writings are there in relation to the events, which normally occurred in any family. No effort was made to establish that the writings in the book were that of Ahilya Bahadur. Assuming that the note book was being maintained by Ahilya Bahadur, it is evident that, except that few events now and then were scribbled therein, it cannot be said to be a chronicle of every important event in her life. Added to that, if the genuinity of Ex.B-1 is to receive any dent, on account of its not having been referred to, in Ex.A-5, the same thing occurs to Ex.A-1, since that was also not mentioned in Ex.A-5. The plea of the plaintiff in this regard does, not at all require any serious consideration. We are satisfied that Ex.B-1, the gift deed, dated 10-11-1999, apart from not having been proved to be tainted with fraud or misrepresentation, has been proved as required under law. Hence, point No.2 is also answered accordingly. We do not find any legal or factual error in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in the appeals shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.