Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 19-8-1980 passed by Shri Jordan Kachhap, IIIrd Additional Sub-Judge, palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No.51 of 1979 whereby and whereunder the said learned court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 22-8-1979 passed by Shri Surendra Narain Singh, Additional Munsif, Palamau at Daltonganj in title Suit No.27 of 1977. 2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and further prayed for a declaration that his title is not affected by the collusively and fraudulently manoeuvred purcha issued under Act IV of 1948 (Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead tenancy Act) (hereinafter referred as the said Act) in the name of Jangali dusadh. The plaintiff-appellant further claimed for other reliefs. 3. Both the learned courts have held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable under Sec.18 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead tenancy Act, 1948. 4. By an order dated 29-7-1981 at the time of admission of this appeal the following substantial question of law was formulated : -"whether the suit is hit by Sec.18 of the Bihar Privileged Persons homestead Tenancy Act (Bihar Act IV of 1948 ). " 5. Admittedly a parcha was granted to Jangli Dusadh by the Collector under the said Act. The said parcha has been marked as Ext. D in the trial court. 6. Section 18 of the said Act reads as follows: - "all orders passed by the Collector in any proceeding under this acts shall be final, and no suit shall lie in any Civil Court to vary or set aside any such order except on the ground of fraud or want of jurisdiction. " 7. The language used in the a forementioned Section is absolutely clear and unambiguous. In view of the admitted fact that a parcha was granted by the Collector under the said Act in favour of Jangli Dusadh it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to plead and prove the particulars of fraud practiced or want of jurisdiction in the collector in granting the said parcha in the name of the aforementioned Jangli Dusadh. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. K. K. Sahay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant with reference to the judgment of the learned lower appellate court submitted that although it was argued before him that the grant of parcha was vitiated by reason of non-compliance of Rule 5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons homestead Tenancy Rules, the said learned court failed to take into consideration the effect thereof and thus misdirected himself in law. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned lower appellate court has wrongly placed the onus of proof upon the plaintiff to show that the Collector in granting the parcha acted without jurisdication inasmuch as according to the learned counsel, the plaintiff cannot be called upon to establish a negative fact and in that view of the matter the learned counsel contends that the person who claims his title on the basis of A parcha granted under the said Act should plead and prove that the said parcha was granted in accordance with law. 9. Mr. Sahay further submitted that in any event the plaintiff having pleaded and proved the fraud practiced by the Jangli Dusadh in obtaining the said parcha, this finding of the learned lower appellate court is erroneous. 10. In this connection the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the statements made in paragraphs 9 and 15 of the plaint and the evidence of the plaintiff before the learned trial court in his deposition as P. W.7. 11. Mr. P. C. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the plaintiff has failed to plead and prove the factum of fraud or want of jurisdiction in the Collector while granting the said parcha (Ext. D) in favour of the aforementioned Jangli Dusadh. It has for the plaintiff to prove that fraud by giving particulars thereof as contemplated under Order VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the learned counsel, the alleged allegations regarding practice of fraud having not been pleaded and nor any evidence having been adduced to prove the same the learned lower appellate court was correct in his approach that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit in spite of the statutory bar contained in Sec.18 of the said Act. 12. 12. From the plain language of Sec.18 of the said Act becomes absolutely clear that the legislature intended that any order passed by the collector would be final and in that view of the matter the jurisdiction of the civil Court has been ousted expressely. However an exception has been made in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction by the civil court only in the event a fraud or want of jurisdiction in the collector is pleaded and proved in passing an order under the said Act. It is, therefore, clear that if the plaintiff wanted to prove his case within the purview of the exception contained in Sec.18 of the said Act it was for him to prove the said fact. 13. True it is that normally the jurisdication of the Civil Court is to be presumed unless the same is expressely or by necessary implication is taken away by operation of any statute. 14. In the instant case, Sec.18 of the said Act expresse puts an embargo so far as the exercise of jurisdiction by the Civil Court is concerned in modifying or setting aside any order passed under the said Act which order is otherwise final and binding on the parties to the said proceeding. 15. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, it was obligatory on the part of the plaiatiff to show that the collector acted without jurisdiction in granting the parcha (Ext. D) in the name of Jangli Dusadh or any fraud was practiced upon the court by the grantee in obtaining the same. 16. Rule 5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules lays down the procedure as to how and in what manner an application for grant of parcha should be entertained and disposed of. It is evident from the evidence of P. W.7 (Plaintiff-appellant) that he had knowledge about the passing of the said order as he had filed an application for setting aside the same. 17. It is evident from the evidence of P. W.7 (Plaintiff-appellant) that he had knowledge about the passing of the said order as he had filed an application for setting aside the same. 17. In this view of the matter he knew that a proceeding under the provision of the said Act was initiated against him and in that view of the matter there was absolutely no reason as to why he could not plead that in the said proceeding he did not receive any notice or the said proceeding is vitiated for non-compliance of Rule 5 of the said Rules by stating in his plaint the foundational facts in respect thereof. As a matter of fact the plaintiff-appellant merely stated in para 9 of the plaint that fraud or collusion in granting of the said parcha and rent receipts would be apparent if the records of the said proceeding are perused by the court. 18. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff-appellant would be deemed to have knowledge with regard to the contents of the records in the said proceeding but inspite thereof there is nothing to show as has been held by the learned lower appellate court that the plaintiff called for the said records or otherwise proved the illegality, allegedly, committed by the collector under the said Act in granting the said parcha. 19. So far as the non service of notice upon the plaintiff is concerned, true it is that the plaintiff was merely to plead and prove a negative fact that he did not receive a notice but it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to plead and prove the said jurisdictional fact. 20. The plaintiff, in my opinion, ought to have pleaded that he had no notice in the said proceeding nor the mandatory provisions of law in the proceeding for grant of parcha under the said Act was not complied with. 21. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the learned lower appellate court has correctly held that the plaintiff has neither pleaded nor proved that the order granting the parcha in favour of the aforementioned Jangli Dusadh was vitiated by non-compliance of the Rule 5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons homestead Tenancy Rules. 22. In this connection it may further be mentioned th. 22. In this connection it may further be mentioned th. it P. W.7 in his deposition merely steated that the parcha granted to Jangli Dusadh was in valid and he filed an application for setting aside parcha and the Collector had allegedly orally told him that the said parcha would remain valid during the life, time of Jangli Dusadh and upon his death the property will revent in him. 23. In this view of the matter there is absolutely no doubt that in his deposition except saying that the parcha in question is valid in law he even did not say that he had not received any notice in respect of the said proceeding. 24. So far as the question of fraud allegedly having been practiced in obtaining the said parcha is concerned, as indicated hereinbefore, Mr. Sahay has drawn my attention to paragraphs 9 and 15 of the plaint. Paragraphs 9 and 15 of the plaint reads as follows: - "9 That as a further measure towards vindication of their grudge, mithu and Puneshwar, having brought the local revenue staff in their collusion got parcha respecting 4 decimals with Goshala house of plaintiff over plot No.132 and 8 decimals of plot no.131 of plaintiffs Bari lands, fradulently prepared and issued in Jangalis name under Privileged Persons Homestead tenancy Act of 1948 and further got rent receipts also issued in his name as a measure to give color of genuineness to the malafide and fradulent action. The fraud and collussion in the matter of granting of the parcha and rent receipt would be apparent if the records of the case are perused by this court. The defendant No.1 or Mithu or puneshwar or even Jangali, who was in their clutches, could not, however, interfere with plaintiffs sheer possession over the room (in which Jangli lived) of his Goshala and cultivation over the lands of plot No.131, probably for fear that Jangli would not join hands with them in perpetrating their evil design and fraud. 15. That the plaintiff respectfully submits that he had been all along in sheer possession of the suit lands and the house on plot No.132 in the manner stated in paras 1 to 6 of this plaint. He was samepticiously dispossessed from the house on plot No.132 on the night of 30-6-1976 when during the pendency of proceeding under section 145 Cr. He was samepticiously dispossessed from the house on plot No.132 on the night of 30-6-1976 when during the pendency of proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. the defendant No.1 stealthily entered the house with the help and instigation of her son in law Mithu as well as her other supporters and the plaintiff was dispossessed from the lands of plot No.131 on 30-12-1976 i. e. on the day following the date of the order under Sec.145 Cr. P. C. The plaintiff had already got and acquired perfected and indefeasible right title and possession over the suit lands in the manner stated in paragraphs 1 to 6 above, and his right, title and possession could not be affected by the collusively and fraudulently manoeuvred parcha and rent receipts in the name of Jangli Dusadh and since the plaintiff was in possession on the date of the initiation of the proceeding under Sec.145 Cr. P. C. , his possession should have been declared therein. The plaintiff in the circumstances has a genuine and valid cause to be redressed by this Court and he is legally entitled to be put back in possession of the suit lands on declaring his title thereto and evicting the defendant No.1 thereform. The plaintiff is also entitled to mesne profits from the date of his dispossession till the date of recovery of possession which provisionally and for purposes of this suit, the plaintiff claims and values at Rs.50. " 25. It would be evident that para 15 is by way of submission on the part of the plaintiff and therein the plaintiff has allegedly his possession. 26. Order VI, Rule 2 C. P. C. provides that a party is to bring of the material facts in his pleadings on which the party pleading relies for his claim. In terms of Order VI Rule 4 C. P. C. in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond to prove such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and item, if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading. 27. Evidently para 9 of the plaint does not satisfy the requirement of order VI, Rule 4 C. P. C. 28. 27. Evidently para 9 of the plaint does not satisfy the requirement of order VI, Rule 4 C. P. C. 28. Further even save and except a vague and general allegation as indicated hereinbefore the plaintiff has not stated as to how and in what manner fraud was practiced by Jangli Dusadh in obtaining the parcha in question. As a matter of fact even in his evidence the plaintiff failed to state any material fact necessary to prove of fraud nor any materials in respect thereof was brought on record in his own deposition or by examining any other witnesses. 29. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the judgment and decree of the learned court below cannot be assailed. 30. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed but without costs. Appeal dismissed.