JUDGMENT K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.-This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the concurrent judgment of the Courts below dismissing her suit filed for declaration of title and for the relief of injunction in so far as it relates to 2 acres 7 guntas out of 6 acres in land bearing Survey No. 68/2003 of Chikkabagewadi village in Bailhongal Taluk. 2. The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 39/2007 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Bailhongal, against one Shivarudrappa Fakirappa Sogalad and one Channappa, inter alia contending that the suit schedule property totally measuring 6 acres fell to the share of her father in the partition effected between himself and his brother and till his lifetime he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and after his death she has succeeded to the same, as such, she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that the defendant No. 1 having no manner of right title or interest over the same, is trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment. Defendant No. 2 was stated to be a formal party, as his name was appearing in the record of rights. Even before the defendant No. 1 could appear before the Trial Court, he died. Thereafter, his legal representatives were brought on record. They filed written statement inter alia contending that during his lifetime the father of the plaintiff executed sale deed dated 30.11.2001 in favour of the original defendant No. 1 in respect of land measuring 2 acres 7 guntas in land bearing Survey No. 68/3 of Chikkabagewadi village and since then the original defendant No. 1 was in possession and enjoyment of the said land and after the death of defendant No. 1, his heirs are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the suit to the extent of land sold in favour of the original defendant No. 1. 3. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule landed property? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that she is in absolute possession of the suit property? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged inference by the defendant No. 1 over the suit land? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule landed property? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that she is in absolute possession of the suit property? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged inference by the defendant No. 1 over the suit land? 4. Whether the defendant No. 1 proves that he has purchased the land to an extent of 02 acre 07 guntas under the registered sale deed dated 03/12/2001 for Rs. 1,31,000/- from Basavanneppa Shivalingappa Jooti and he is in possession of the same as per the boundaries shown in written statement para No. 4? 5. Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is correct? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the reliefs as sought for? 7. What order or decree?" 4. The parties lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. Plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and produced Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3. One of the legal representatives of the original defendant No. 1 was examined as R.W.1 and an attestor to the sale deed examined as R.W.2. The legal representatives of the defendant No. 1 produced the original sale deed and marked the same as Ex.D-1, apart from producing two more documents marked as Ex.D-2 and Ex.D-3. 5. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the legal representatives of the 1st defendant have proved that the father of the plaintiff executed the sale deed, as per Ex.D-1 in favour of the original 1st defendant, whereunder, land to an extent of 2 acres 7 guntas in land bearing Survey No. 68/3 of Chikkabagewadi village came to be sold, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be declared as owner of the land to that extent. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part, declaring the plaintiff as owner of the suit schedule property except to an extent of 2 acres 7 guntas covered under the sale deed Ex.D-1. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dismissing the suit to an extent of 2 acres 7 guntas, plaintiff filed the appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dismissing the suit to an extent of 2 acres 7 guntas, plaintiff filed the appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. Before the Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff sought to dispute the genuineness of the sale deed Ex.D-1 by contending that as on the purported date of the sale deed and its registration, her father was in judicial custody and therefore, he could not have executed the sale deed nor could admit the execution of the sale deed before the Jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. On that basis, it was contended that the sale deed produced, as per Ex.D-1 is a fabricated and forged document. Certified copies of the order sheet maintained by the Taluka Executive Magistrate in the case in which the father of the plaintiff was remanded to judicial custody and also a certificate from the Jail Authorities were sought to be produced before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence on record and also referring to the arguments regarding the genuineness of the sale deed Ex.D-1 held that the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff would indicate that on 30.11.2001 at about 11.35 p.m., the father of the plaintiff and the original 1st defendant were produced before the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Bailhongal and at that time, they were remanded to judicial custody and that as per the certificate issued by the Jail Authorities, both of them were released from the Jail at 05.00 p.m. on 01.12.2001. Under these circumstances, the Lower Appellate Court held that there was no difficulty for the father of the plaintiff to have executed the sale deed on 30.11.2001 and also to have appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 01.12.2001, since the apparent tenor of Ex.D-1 indicates that the sale deed was presented for registration at 05.20 p.m. on 01.12.2001. The Lower Appellate Court also noticed that even though the legal representatives of the original 1st defendant raised a contention before the Trial Court that the father of the plaintiff has executed the sale-deed in respect of 2 acres 7 guntas and also produced the sale deed before the Trial Court, the plaintiff did not dispute the genuineness of the document by filing further pleadings with the leave of the Court nor led any evidence in that regard. The Lower Appellate Court also noticed that the two documents on which the plaintiff sought to place reliance with regard to her father remaining in judicial custody, were in her custody even during the pendency of the suit before the Trial Court, but no explanation is forthcoming from her as to why those documents were not produced before the Trial Court. In that view of the matter, Lower Appellate Court held that the Trial Court is justified in holding that the father of the plaintiff had sold land to an extent of 2 acres 7 guntas in favour of the original 1st defendant under Ex.D-1. Therefore, the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said concurrent judgment of the Courts below, the plaintiff is before this Court. 6. I have heard Shri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Perused the judgments under appeal. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court has not framed independent issue regarding the prayer for injunction and the same has not been considered in the light of the entries in the revenue records in respect of the entire extent of land. He further contended that having regard to the fact that the father of the plaintiff was in judicial custody, the case of the legal representatives of 1st defendant regarding execution of the sale deed is highly doubtful and the document Ex.D-1 has not been proved. He also sought to place reliance on the provisions of Section 32-A of the Indian Registration Act which came into force with effect from 24.09.2001 requiring at fixture of passport size photograph on the document and contended that since the passport size photograph of the Executant of the document is not forthcoming on Ex.D-1, the said circumstance corroborates the contention of the plaintiff that Ex.D-1 is a concocted and fabricated one. Learned counsel by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Kenchawwa vs. Amagonda, ILR 1988 KAR 1185 and the decision in Shivaji Rao M.V. vs. K.S. Narayana Rao and others, Short Notes of Recent decisions No. 10 in ILR 1979 KAR, contended that non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 32A of the Registration Act and Rule 73(1) of the Karnataka Registration Rules has rendered the document void. 7. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the judgment under appeal, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law. 8. As noticed supra, at the earliest point of time, the legal representative of the defendant No. 1, on their appearance before the Trial Court, put forth a definite case contending that the father of the plaintiff during his lifetime, executed the sale deed in respect of2 acres 7 guntas in favour of the original defendant No. 1. They also produced the original sale deed and later marked the same as Ex.D-1. Inspite of such a specific stand taken by the legal representatives of the 1st defendant before the Trial Court, no attempt was made by the plaintiff to raise any dispute regarding genuineness of the document. It was open to the plaintiff to plead those facts by way of further pleadings with the leave of the Court, since the legal representatives of the 1st defendant had put forth a new case which was adverse to the interest of the plaintiff. However, for the reasons best known to her, the plaintiff kept quite. She went on asserting that she has succeeded to the entire extent of the land. As noticed by the Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff was in possession of the documents relating to the remand of her father to judicial custody and his release from the jail. For the reasons best known to her, those documents were also not produced before the Trial Court. The legal representatives of the 1st defendant examined D.W.2, an attestor to the document and thereby proved the execution of the document. There was absolutely no suggestion to D.W.2 with regard to the father of the plaintiff not executing the document. The legal representatives of the 1st defendant by cogent evidence have proved the execution of the sale deed, Ex.D-1 by the father of the plaintiff. There was no contra evidence led by the plaintiff. Therefore, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the father of the plaintiff has executed the sale deed in respect of 2 acres 7 guntas in favour of the original 1st defendant. It was only as an after thought, an attempt was sought to be made before the Lower Appellate Court with regard to the genuineness of the document. Therefore, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the father of the plaintiff has executed the sale deed in respect of 2 acres 7 guntas in favour of the original 1st defendant. It was only as an after thought, an attempt was sought to be made before the Lower Appellate Court with regard to the genuineness of the document. Even before the Lower Appellate Court, the arguments now canvassed before this Court on the basis of Section 32-A of the Indian Registration Act and 73 of the Karnataka Registration Rules were not urged. For the first time, these contentions have been raised before this Court. 9. There is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court has not framed separate issue regarding prayer for injunction. Issue No. 6, in my opinion, covers the said aspect of the matter. The Trial Court has granted the relief to the plaintiff, however in part. Even according to the contention of the plaintiff in the record of rights, the name of 2nd defendant was appearing. Defendant No. 2 was made as formal party to the suit. The suit was not for relief of possession. Therefore, the Trial Court having regard to the contents of the sale deed, Ex.D-1 and the evidence of D.W.2, recorded a finding that the plaintiff cannot be declared as owner of the land to the extent covered under Ex.D-1. Even as per the document sought to be produced before the Lower Appellate Court, as observed by the learned Appellate Judge, the father of the plaintiff was arrested by the Police and produced before the Taluka Executive Magistrate at 11.35 p.m. on 30.11.2001 and he was released from jail at 05.00 p.m. on 01.12.2001. The document Ex.D-1 is shown to have been executed on 30.11.2001. Therefore, there was no difficulty for the father of the plaintiff to have executed the sale deed on 30.11.2001, since he was shown to have been arrested and produced before the Taluka Executive Magistrate only at 11.35 p.m., as such, for whole of the day on 30.11.2001 he was at liberty. As per the endorsement made on Ex.D-2, the sale deed was presented for registration at 05.20 p.m. on 01.12.2001. As noticed supra, the father of the plaintiff was released from jail at 05.00 p.m. on that day. As per the endorsement made on Ex.D-2, the sale deed was presented for registration at 05.20 p.m. on 01.12.2001. As noticed supra, the father of the plaintiff was released from jail at 05.00 p.m. on that day. It is also noticed by the Lower Appellate Court that the distance between the jail and the Sub-Registrar's Office at Bailhongal, could be covered within about 10 minutes. Therefore, there was nothing strange on the part of the father of the plaintiff having appeared before the Sub-Registrar at 05.20 p.m. on 01.12.2001. A contention was raised before this Court to the effect that the document was presented before the Sub-Registrar on 30.11.2001 and since there was deficit stamp duty, the same was not registered on that day and on the following day the deficit stamp duty was shown to have been paid by the father of the plaintiff which he could not have done since he was in judicial custody. Of course, the perusal of the Ex.D-1 indicates that deficit stamp duty was deposited on 01.12.2001 in the name of father of the plaintiff. The contents of Ex.D-1 does not indicate that the father of the plaintiff personally went to the treasury for depositing the deficit stamp duty on 01.12.2001. Therefore, there is no substance in the said contention. No doubt, Ex.D-1 does not contain the photograph of the Executant of the document. Section 32-A was introduced into the statute book with effect from 24.09.2001. Section 32-A states fixing of a photograph is compulsory. As per this Section, every person presenting document at the proper Registration Office under Section 32, shall affix his passport size photograph and finger prints to the document. Proviso to Section 32-A directs that where such document relates to ownership of immovable property, the passport size photograph and finger prints of each buyer and seller of such property mentioned in the document shall also be fixed to the document. No doubt, the photographs of the seller and buyer are not affixed on Ex.D-1 and thereby, there was non-compliance of newly introduced Section 32-A of the Registration Act. However, the Section does not indicate that non-compliance of this provision renders the document void or unenforceable. No doubt, the photographs of the seller and buyer are not affixed on Ex.D-1 and thereby, there was non-compliance of newly introduced Section 32-A of the Registration Act. However, the Section does not indicate that non-compliance of this provision renders the document void or unenforceable. In Kenchawwa's case referred to supra, this Court has considered that the Sub-Registrar has failed to make proper endorsement in accordance with the Section 59 of the Registration Act and non-compliance of the said provision, has been held as rendering the document void and not binding, I am of the considered opinion, the principles laid down in the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is pertinent to note that the father of the plaintiff was alive for about one year after the date of the execution of the document. During that period, he did not dispute the document nor challenged the same. 10. Having regard to the above facts, the two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of this case and in the light of the document, Ex.D-1, I do not find any error or illegality in the judgments of the Court below declining to grant the relief in respect of the land to an extent of 2 acres 7 guntas. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.