Judgement JUDGEMENT :- This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Manipur, in C. A. Case No. 23/71/19 of 1971. 2. The plaintiffs case is that the suit land measuring 2.98 acres of patta No. 67/217-I.W.T. (old) corresponding to patta No. 67/86 (new) of the same tahsil, belonged to Tombi Singh, late husband of the plaintiff. Tombi Singh died in 1955, leaving behind his wife Ibetombi Devi, the plaintiff, and three daughters, defendant Nos. 5 to 7. The plaintiff alleges that she inherited the land from her husband and was in continuous possession thereof. Her husband was lying ill for about 5/6 years. During that time Mutum Kwaklei Singh, a local physician who was a close friend of Tombi Singh, attended him. He was also entrusted with the management of the land. The plaintiff further alleges that Kwaklei Singh used to manage the property even after the death of Tombi Singh. The suit land was let out to defendant No. 1 on payment of 16 pots of paddy per year for about four years. Kwaklei Singh died in October, 1969, leaving his wife, defendant No. 2, and two sons, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and a daughter defendant No. 8. The name of Kwaklei Singh was recorded in the revenue records in respect of the suit land behind the back of the plaintiff. On enquiry, it is further alleged, she came to know, that a deed of sale was purported to have been executed by her husband, Tombi Singh, in favour of Kwaklei Singh on 3-5-1950, but that it was a sham transaction. As defendant No. 1 refused to pay her share of the paddy she came with the present suit for declaration of her title to the land in suit and for recovery of possession thereof and also for recovery of 12 pots of paddy or its value amounting to Rs. 312/- from defendant Nos. 1 to 4 at the rate of Rs. 13/- per Sangbai. 3. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a joint written statement. Their case is that Tombi Singh sold the land by registered sale deed dated 3-5-1950 to Kwaklei Singh, whose name was mutated en 19-1-1952, a separate patta, being patta No. 67/322-I.W.T., was issued to him; he was in possession of the land and after his death, defendant Nos. 3. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a joint written statement. Their case is that Tombi Singh sold the land by registered sale deed dated 3-5-1950 to Kwaklei Singh, whose name was mutated en 19-1-1952, a separate patta, being patta No. 67/322-I.W.T., was issued to him; he was in possession of the land and after his death, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 continued to be in possession thereof. They further allege that defendant No. 1 was a tenant under Kwaklei and after him under them, and not under the plaintiff. 4. Defendant No. 8 filed a separate written statement supporting defendant Nos. 1 to 5. 5. Defendant Nos. 5 to 7 also have filed a joint written statement. They have supported the case of the plaintiff. 6. The learned Munsiff, after trial, decreed the suit. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff and dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal. 7. The only point involved in this case is whether Tombi Singh, during his lifetime, sold the disputed land to Kwaklei Singh. 8. The learned lower appellate Court, after considering the materials on record, came to the findings that the story of management of the disputed land by Kwaklei Singh, was a got-up story and that the sale deed, Ext. B/1 dated 3-5-1950 executed by Tombi Singh in favour of Kwaklei, was a genuine deed. He has also considered Exts. B/3 to B/10 showing payments of revenue by the contesting defendants and then ultimately dismissed the suit as stated above, holding that the plaintiff had no right to the suit land. 9. Shri Priyananda Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has made two submissions before me: Firstly, that Ext. B/1 is a void document, inasmuch as it was presented by the younger brother of the executant in violation of Section 32 of the Indian Registration Act, and as such Kwaklei could not get any title under Ext. B/1. His second submission is that in any case, the land sold under Ext. B/1 being 2.50 acres, the plaintiff cannot get a decree in respect of the entire land claimed in the suit, viz., 2.98 acres. Learned counsel submit; that the document Ext. B/1. His second submission is that in any case, the land sold under Ext. B/1 being 2.50 acres, the plaintiff cannot get a decree in respect of the entire land claimed in the suit, viz., 2.98 acres. Learned counsel submit; that the document Ext. B/1 was obtained by fraud and the fact that the document was presented for registration by the younger brother of the executant is a circumstance from which fraud can be inferred. On the other hand, Shri Nokulsana Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the plea of fraud may not be allowed to be raised by the appellant as this point was not taken in the pleading in accordance with Order 6, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. His second submission is that the point that Ext. B/1 was presented to the Sub-Registrar by the younger brother of the executant was also not taken in the pleading. 10. Order 6. Rule 4, Civil P.C., inter alia, provides that in all caws in which the party pleading relies on fraud, particulars shall be stated in the pleading. In the instant case, except merely mentioning that the document was obtained by fraud, no particulars of fraud have been stated in the plaint. The fact that the document was presented by the younger brother of the plaintiff was also not taken. As such, no issue was framed in that regard, and, I am told at the Bar, no evidence was also adduced by the parties. The plea of fraud is therefore not available to the plaintiff and so also the plea of violation of Section 32 of the Registration Act may not be permitted to be raised. Had this plea been taken by the plaintiff in the plaint, the contesting defendants might have been in a position to show either that the document was presented by the executant himself, or that it was presented by the younger brother of the executant, duly authorised by the latter as contemplated by Section 32 of the Registration Act. That apart, the learned lower appellate Court has found that the sale deed Ext. B/1 contains, on the back of it, the necessary certificate, signed, dated and sealed by the Sub-Registrar in the manner prescribed by the Registration Act. In the result, the learned Lower Appellate Court was justified in holding that the sale deed Ext. B/1 is not void. 11. B/1 contains, on the back of it, the necessary certificate, signed, dated and sealed by the Sub-Registrar in the manner prescribed by the Registration Act. In the result, the learned Lower Appellate Court was justified in holding that the sale deed Ext. B/1 is not void. 11. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant has force. The sale deed Ext. B/1 purports to transfer only 2.50 acres of land and Shri Nokulsana Singh also concedes to this. The plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to a decree in respect of the excess over 2.50 acres of land, viz., over 0.48 acre (2.98 minus 2.50 acres). 12. In the result, the plaintiffs suit is decreed to the extent of 0.48 acre only. With this modification in the decree, the appeal is dismissed. I, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.