T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant. His suit-for declaration and injunction based on sale deed, was dismissed by the trial court and such dismissal was confirmed by the lower Appellate court. Hence, he is before this Court in this second appeal. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff claimed to be the owner having purchased the suit property from his father under registered sale deed dated 14. 5. 1976 executed by his father and brother. The defendant is the divided brother of the plaintiff owning property and enjoying them. The defendant has no matter of right and when the enjoyment of the plaintiff was disturbed by the defendant, he sought declaration and injunction: ( 3 ) THE defendant resisted the suit contending that the sale deed dt. 14. 5. 1976 was fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff from his father. Some temporary arrangements were made, when the father was alive between the plaintiff and the defendant in front of the panchas with regard to cultivation and enjoyment of the suit property. As per the arrangement, the plaintiff has been cultivating and enjoying the western 6 acres of land and the defendant is cultivating and enjoying eastern 3 acres 21 guntas. The plaintiff is not in possession of the entire suit property and the defendant is entitled to half share in the suit schedule property. The defendant has not disturbed the plaintiff's enjoyment of 6 acres of land. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings alone wherein the defendant has admitted the ownership and enjoyment of the plaintiff to an extent of 6 acres, the suit should have been decreed, on the admission of the defendant; such is an error apparent on the face of law and it exhibits perverse attitude of the Courts below. ( 5 ) THE trial court though held that the plaintiff has no title to the property and the sale deed was concocted, however, confirmed the plaintiff's possession to 6 acres of land, but yet declined to give the decree on the ground that the plaintiff has not established his exclusive title over the suit land. The appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court holding that there was no partition as alleged by the plaintiff and the plaintiff could not get any title under the sale deed Ex. P. 2. The appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court holding that there was no partition as alleged by the plaintiff and the plaintiff could not get any title under the sale deed Ex. P. 2. However, the Appellate court confirmed the possession of the plaintiff to an extent of 6 acres, but again declined to grant the relief at least to that extent. ( 6 ) IN this second appeal, it is contended that the presumption in respect of registered sale deed ought to have been drawn by the courts below and in any event the decree should have been at least in respect of the portion admitted. The question whether the sale is supported by consideration or not is not warranted by the facts and evidence and the courts below are not right in discarding the documents and relying only on oral evidence which is contrary to the documents produced in the case. ( 7 ) PLEADING is an important role in a decision of the case in law. Order 14 Rule l (b) which contemplates framing of issues visualises a situation only when a material proposition of act or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. Order 14 Rule 1 (6) which reads as follows: "o. 14 Settlement of issues and determination of suit an issues of law or on issues agreed upon:- 1. Framing of Issues:- (1) Issues arises 'when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. (2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. (4) Issues are of two kinds: (a) issues of fact, (b) issues of law. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. (4) Issues are of two kinds: (a) issues of fact, (b) issues of law. (5) At the first hearing of the suit the court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements,' if any, and after examination under rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. (6) Nothing in this rule requires the court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence. "order 15 Rule 1 calls upon the court to pronounce judgment when no issue arises: order 15 Rule 1 says disposal of the suit at the first hearing:"1. Parties not at issue -.- Where at the first hearing of a suit it appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or of fact, the court may at once pronounce judgment. "order 14 Rule 1 (6) read with Order 15 rule 1 CPC contemplates cases of no defence when the suit (to that extent) should be decreed. The said Order clearly directs passing of the judgment on admission. This salient provision of CPC could not have been forgotten by the courts. ( 8 ) IT is necessary to peruse and examine the pleadings and frame issues only in controversial point. In this case, there has been no denial of plaintiff's right and enjoying of 6 acres of land. Therefore to that extent decree should have been granted. The courts below have not applied the principle of CPC, which is neither proper nor legal. On this score alone, the judgment and decree of the courts below has to be set aside. ( 9 ) ANY registered document raises a presumptive value regarding its validity. Registration confirms the genuineness and validity of any document which has undergone the ordeal of the procedure prescribed under such act. When a document is presented for registration by the executant of the document, the duty of the Registrar is to examine the contents of the document. ( 9 ) ANY registered document raises a presumptive value regarding its validity. Registration confirms the genuineness and validity of any document which has undergone the ordeal of the procedure prescribed under such act. When a document is presented for registration by the executant of the document, the duty of the Registrar is to examine the contents of the document. If the party who executes the document is not aware of the language in which the document is written, the Registrar is bound to explain the contents and meaning thereof. to the executant and after the executant admits his signature in the main document, the Registrar calls for two identifying witnesses to identify the executant to appear before him. Then endorsements are made on the back side of the registered instrument preferably on the second page, after the witnesses are called upon to identify the executant. The signature of the executant as well as his/her thumb impression is taken on that second page and also on a separate register maintained in the Sub-Registrar's office. After the document is scrutinised by the Registrar regarding its validity, then the final registration taken place. Such a document cannot be assailed and the presumption arising therefrom cannot be easily rebutted. If really a document is to be attacked, it can be only on the grounds know or fraud or undue influence or any other mode mentioned in the contract Act. In the absence of any such attack which attack must prime facie show that there is iota of evidence in the allegation, the registered document shall. remain unchallengeable. Otherwise there is no purpose in getting the document registered in the Registrar Office. ( 10 ) VIEWING from the above angle, the attack on the registered sale deed of the year 1976, after six years in 1982, should have been repelled and rebutted by the -courts below instead of embarking upon an unnecessary and unwarranted exercise of analysis, discussion and detailed examination. This exercise is futile. ( 11 ) THE document being a registered document and the plea of fraud putforth by the defendant having not been proved by any evidence worth the name, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff must succeed throughout. There is no dispute regarding 6 acres and the balance 3 acres cannot be denied to the plaintiff. ( 11 ) THE document being a registered document and the plea of fraud putforth by the defendant having not been proved by any evidence worth the name, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff must succeed throughout. There is no dispute regarding 6 acres and the balance 3 acres cannot be denied to the plaintiff. ( 12 ) IN this view, setting aside the judgment and decrees of the courts below, the second appeal is allowed and the suit- is decreed with costs as prayed for. Second appeal allowed. --- *** --- .