JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. These are appeals against the common judgment dated 29.4.1989 of the learned District Judge, Sundargarh. 2. Plaintiffs-appellants instituted T.S. No.56 of 1984 in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sundargarh for declaration of the gift deed no.230/82 dated 10.2.82 executed in favour of the defendant-Ashok Kumar Patel as null and void. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff no.1 is the husband of plaintiff no.2. Plaintiff no.1 was suffering from T.B. The plaintiffs were in search of a suitable person to look after their comforts during their old age and to manage the affairs of their properties. The defendant, who is the brother’s son of plaintiff no.2 and his wife, Bharati came forward to look after them. Bharati is the daughter-in-law of plaintiff no.1’s younger brother. The plaintiffs requested the defendant and his wife to live in their house and look after them. But the defendant and his wife insisted upon to transfer some properties to them and execute a deed in their favour. The plaintiffs intended to execute a will in favour of the defendants in a feeble state of mind. But then, the defendant and his wife with the help of their close relatives obtained two gift deeds on 10.2.82. The contentions of the gift deeds were not read over and not explained to them. They signed on those documents in good faith with an impression that those documents were wills. Thereafter they mutated the land in their favour. Plaintiffs never intended to execute gift deeds in favour of the defendant and his wife. They cancelled the gift deeds on 25.8.83. With this factual scenario, they instituted the aforesaid suit seeking the relief’s mentioned supra. 3. The defendant entered contest and filed written statement. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs were issueless. They develop intense love for Bharati, daughter-in-law of plaintiff no.1’s younger brother, from her childhood. Bharati brought up in the house of the plaintiffs. They treated Bharati as their daughter. They performed the marriage of Bharati with the defendant, who is the brother’s son of plaintiff no.2. The plaintiffs out of their own accord and free will executed two gift deeds in their favour, so that they could lead a blissful marital life. The marriage of the defendant was solemnized in the house of the plaintiffs. They performed the marriage of Bharati with the defendant, who is the brother’s son of plaintiff no.2. The plaintiffs out of their own accord and free will executed two gift deeds in their favour, so that they could lead a blissful marital life. The marriage of the defendant was solemnized in the house of the plaintiffs. The suit land was mutated in the name of the defendant and his wife at the instance of plaintiff no.1. After marriage, the defendant and his wife looked after the comforts of the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that plaintiff no.1 had not suffered from T.B. Defendant and his wife were 23 years and 19 years old respectively when the gift deeds were executed. No fraud was practised upon the plaintiffs. 4. The plaintiffs have also instituted T.S. No.57 of 1984 in the same court seeking for a declaration that the gift deed no.231/1982 dated 10.2.82 executed in favour of Bharati Patel, w/o-Ashok Kumar Patel as void. The defendant entered contest and filed a written statement. The pleading in the suit is same as that of earlier suit. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the appeals, both the appellants died. Their legal heirs/representatives have been substituted on the basis of a will said to have been executed by the appellants during their life time. 5. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck issues. Both the suits were heard analogously. Parties led evidence. Learned trial court came to hold that P.W.1 does not know English. From the signature of P.W.1, it appeared that he was able to sign his name. His wife, plaintiff no.2, is an illiterate woman. There is no mention in the gift deeds that Bharati was treated like the daughter and was brought up in the house of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff no.1 had five brothers. There is no evidence that plaintiff no.1 had ill feeling with his brothers. The defendants could not say the details of the property gifted to him. Bharati’s behaviour with the plaintiffs insisting upon execution of gift deed was unbecoming of a Hindu daughter. The haste with which the series of transactions took place creates an impression that one side was trying to play with the emotional needs of the other. The deeds appeared to be unconditional as a reward for past service. Bharati’s behaviour with the plaintiffs insisting upon execution of gift deed was unbecoming of a Hindu daughter. The haste with which the series of transactions took place creates an impression that one side was trying to play with the emotional needs of the other. The deeds appeared to be unconditional as a reward for past service. The service was not rendered by the defendant and his wife. The close relatives of the defendant and his wife actively participated in the execution of the deeds. The deed writer joined hands with the defendant’s family and gave false impression to the executants as to the nature of the documents. The plaintiffs agreed to give Ac.8.00 dec. of land each to the defendant and his wife. But each of them got Ac.8.43 dec. of land. The manner in which the area had been increased had not been explained. The deeds were intended to ensure future maintenance of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs never intended to execute the unconditional gift deeds. The mutation case record revealed that the recorded tenant was present and stated that he had no objection. There was no mention in the order that the plaintiff no.1 admitted having executed the gift deeds. The statement of plaintiff no.1 was not recorded in the mutation case. The plaintiff no.1 might have give signature in the order-sheet under some emotional state that the gift deeds were not acted upon. Delivery of possession of the land was not made to the donees. The plaintiffs never intended to execute the gift deeds in the present form. Held so, it decreed the suits. 6. Assailing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the defendants in both the suits filed T.A. No.2 of 1988 and T.A. No.1 of 1988 respectively before the learned District Judge, Sundargarh. Learned appellate court came to hold that there is absolutely no evidence on record that the plaintiffs were mentally or physically sick at the time of execution of the gift deeds. The plaintiffs were capable persons to look after their own affairs. They could distinguish a will and other modes of transfer of properties. The plaintiff no.2 was having independent advice from her husband, plaintiff no.1. Both executed the gift deeds. Plaintiff no.1 had purchased the stamp papers one day prior to execution of the gift deeds. He along with his brother went to Sub-Registrar Office and consulted D.W.3. They could distinguish a will and other modes of transfer of properties. The plaintiff no.2 was having independent advice from her husband, plaintiff no.1. Both executed the gift deeds. Plaintiff no.1 had purchased the stamp papers one day prior to execution of the gift deeds. He along with his brother went to Sub-Registrar Office and consulted D.W.3. The evidence of D.W.2, deed writer and the attesting witness, D.W.3, show that the contents of the documents were read over and explained to the donors. The plaintiff no.1 was managing their affairs in properties. He came to Sundargarh and purchased stamp papers to execute the deed on the previous day and returned to village. The plaintiffs came on the following date and executed the deeds. The plaintiffs contacted the deed writer. The plaintiffs admitted with regard to due execution of the gift deeds before the Sub-Registrar. In the subsequent mutation proceeding, the plaintiffs appeared and admitted execution of the deeds. The mutation was allowed in favour of the defendants. Fraud was not practised. Held so, it set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. 7. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “When the trial court considering various circumstances appearing from the evidence on record held that the gift deed in question Ext.2, was invalid, inasmuch as, the plaintiff had no intention of executing any deed of gift and had executed the document under impression that it was a Will; was the lower appellate court justified in reversing the said finding merely holding that the plaintiff was mentally and physically fit at the time of execution of the document.” 8. Heard Mr. J.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. S.S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Y. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. B. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants argued with vehemence that the plaintiffs were issueless. Plaintiff no.1 had suffered from T.B. He was in a feeble state of mind. The plaintiffs were in search of a person to look after them in their old age and to manage the affairs of their properties. The defendant and his wife, who are distant relatives, came forward to look after them. They insisted upon the plaintiffs to transfer some properties in their favour. The plaintiffs were in search of a person to look after them in their old age and to manage the affairs of their properties. The defendant and his wife, who are distant relatives, came forward to look after them. They insisted upon the plaintiffs to transfer some properties in their favour. To maintain cordial relationship, the plaintiffs agreed to execute wills in favour of the defendant. The defendant and his wife in connivance with their relatives fraudulently obtained two gift deeds on 10.2.82. The plaintiffs were asked to subscribe their signature and thumb impression on the deeds. The contents of the deeds were not explained to them. They put their signature on the deeds with an impression that the documents were wills and not gift deeds. The defendant and his wife practised fraud and obtained the gift deeds. Subsequently, they cancelled the deeds. The defendant and his wife clandestinely mutated the property in their favour. Criticizing the judgment of the learned appellate court, learned Senior Advocate submitted that on an analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, learned trial court came to hold that the alleged gift deeds were outcome of fraud. But then, on untenable and unsupportable grounds, learned appellate court upset the same. Elaborating the submission, he submitted that the plaintiff no.1 was suffering from T.B. He was in feeble state of mind. Plaintiff no.2 was an illiterate pardanasini lady. A duty is cast upon the defendant to prove that the document had been executed by the plaintiffs after fully understanding the contents thereon. Defendant had not dispelled the cloud of suspicion. There is no mention in the gift deeds that donees agreed to look after them. D.W.4 was inimical to plaintiff no.1. She took active part in execution of the will. The close relatives of the defendants also actively participated in execution of the deed. They knew that the plaintiffs were willing to sign on the papers with the assurance that they would be taken care of during their old age. The deed writer had joined hands with the defendants’ family and gave false impression to the executants with regard to the nature of the documents. It is highly improbable that the plaintiffs will execute the gift deeds of all lands including the homestead to the defendants. Plaintiffs never intended to execute the gift deed. They intended to execute the will. The gift deeds are void. It is highly improbable that the plaintiffs will execute the gift deeds of all lands including the homestead to the defendants. Plaintiffs never intended to execute the gift deed. They intended to execute the will. The gift deeds are void. The statements of the plaintiffs were not recorded in the mutation case. Mutation record of right neither creates title nor extinguishes title. To buttress his submission, he relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of Padma Bewa vs. Krupasindhu Biswal and two others, 60 (1985) CLT 531, Narayan Mishra and two others vs. Champa Dibya (dead) and after her Bhabani Dei and two others, 60 (1985) CLT 487, Musi Dei vs. Labanya Bewa, 63 (1987) CLT 567. 10. Per contra Mr. Y. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents strenuously contended that the defendants and his wife are close relatives of the plaintiffs. They were looking after the plaintiffs. Marriage of defendant was solemnized in the house of the plaintiffs. Since plaintiffs were issueless, out of love and affection they executed the gift deeds in favour of the defendants. The gift deeds were executed on free will and volition. It is quite natural that the near relatives of the parties would participate in execution of the gift deed. Plaintiff no.1 went to Sundargarh, contacted the deed writer one day prior to the execution of the will. On the date of execution of the will, both the plaintiffs had been to the office of the Sub-Registrar. As per their dictation, the gift deeds were scribed. The same was read over and explained to the plaintiffs and after understanding the contents, they signed in the same. Plaintiff no.2 was accompanied by her husband plaintiff no.1. She had an independent advice. 11. In Afsar Shaikh and another vs. Soleman Bibi and others, AIR 1976 SC 163 , the apex Court held that when misrepresentations are alleged, the party pleading them should state as to each misrepresentation, its date and whether it was made in writing or verbal and as to each verbal representation, the occasion thereof. She had an independent advice. 11. In Afsar Shaikh and another vs. Soleman Bibi and others, AIR 1976 SC 163 , the apex Court held that when misrepresentations are alleged, the party pleading them should state as to each misrepresentation, its date and whether it was made in writing or verbal and as to each verbal representation, the occasion thereof. While it is true that ‘undue influence’, ‘fraud’ and ‘misrepresentation’ are cognate vices and may, in part, overlap in some cases, they are in law distinct categories and are, in view of Order 6, Rule 4 read with Order 6 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, required to be separately pleaded, with specificity, particularity and precision. 12. Taking a cue from Afsar Shaikh and another (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in Padma Bewa (supra) held that a plea of fraud is to be raised in the pleadings by giving the particulars thereof as required under Order 6 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure. Pleadings should be concise, but they should also be precise. When fraud is charged against a defendant, it is an acknowledged rule of pleading that the plaintiff must set forth the particulars of the fraud which is alleged. It is not enough to use such general words as 'fraud', 'deceit' or 'machinations'. The circumstances on which a plea of fraud is raised must be incompatible with the hypothesis of good faith. 13. In Narayan Mishra (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that rule applicable to pardanashin ladies on the ground of their ignorance and illiteracy should apply to the case of a poor lady who is equally ignorant and illiterate, but is not pardanashin. It was further held that it is incumbent of the person transacting with a pardanashin or illiterate lady to show that the terms are fair and equitable and that she had been given independent advice in the matter. To charge such a lady upon an instrument alleged to have been executed by her, it must be shown by satisfactory evidence that the document had been explained to and understood by her. Where the person sets up the validity of a deed executed by a pardanashin or illiterate lady, the onus is upon him to prove that she had understood the nature and effect of her act. The same view was taken in Musi Dei (supra). 14. Where the person sets up the validity of a deed executed by a pardanashin or illiterate lady, the onus is upon him to prove that she had understood the nature and effect of her act. The same view was taken in Musi Dei (supra). 14. Plaintiff no.2 is the wife of plaintiff no1. Plaintiff no.1 went to Sundargarh and purchased stamp papers one day prior to execution of the gift deeds. He along with brother went to the Sub-Registrar’s office and consulted D.W.3. On the instruction of plaintiff no.1, the gift deeds were scribed. Plaintiff no.2 had an independent advice by her husband. The contents of the gift deeds were read over and explained to the donors and after understanding the contents of the same, they put their signature and LTI over the same. Even assuming that the entire land had been gifted away by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant and his wife, the circumstance, by itself, in the absence of other evidence to substantiate the case of fraud and misrepresentation, is not suffice to sustain the allegation made by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not substantiated the allegation of fraud and misrepresentation by acceptable evidence. The impugned judgment and decree are well-founded on the evidence on record. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 15. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeals, sans merit, deserve dismissal. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs throughout.