JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This appeal at the instance of the defendants assails the affirming judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kendrapara in Title Appeal No.10 of 1988. 2. Plaintiff-Respondent no.1 instituted the suit for perpetual injunction. Case of the plaintiff is that suit land originally belonged to ex-ruler of Burdhwan. He executed a sale deed in favour of Kadambini Mishra. Kadambini was in possession of the land. To press her legal necessity, she sold the land to him by means of a registered sale deed dated 06.03.1978 for a valid consideration and delivered possession. When defendant no.1, who has no semblance of right, title and interest over the land created disturbance, he instituted the suit. 3. Defendant no.1 filed written statement pleading inter alia that he has constructed residential house over the suit land. He is in possession of the suit land. Kadambini had no title over the suit land. Thus, no title passes by virtue of the sale deed. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed six issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary. On an assessment of evidence on record and pleadings, learned trial court held that plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land. Defendant no.1 has no right, title and interest over the suit land. Felt aggrieved, defendant no.1 filed Title Appeal No.10 of 1998 before the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Kendrapara, which was eventually dismissed. During pendency of the appeal, appellant nos.1, 2 and 4 have died. Their legal heirs have been substituted. 5. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "1. Whether the courts below have committed gross error of law by not framing any issue and deciding that the sale deed Ext.2 by which the plaintiffs claim to have derived the title is void on account of fraud on registration being wholly in contravention with the provision of Section 28 of the Indian Registration Act?" 6. Heard Mr.D.R.Mohapatra on behalf Mr.S.B.Jena, learned Advocates for the appellants and Dr.S.Dash, learned Advocate for the respondent no.1. 7. Mr.Mohapatra, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the sale deed, Ext.2 is a void one, inasmuch as, the same was executed by Kadambini Mishra in favour of the plaintiff by playing fraud. Heard Mr.D.R.Mohapatra on behalf Mr.S.B.Jena, learned Advocates for the appellants and Dr.S.Dash, learned Advocate for the respondent no.1. 7. Mr.Mohapatra, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the sale deed, Ext.2 is a void one, inasmuch as, the same was executed by Kadambini Mishra in favour of the plaintiff by playing fraud. The sale deed is in contravention with the provision of Section 28 of the Indian Registration Act on account of fraud of registration. Defendant no.1 is in possession of the suit land. Thus, the suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. 8. Per contra, Dr.Dash, learned Advocate for the respondent no.1 submitted that the original owner Kadambini Mishra executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 06.03.1978, vide Ext.2. Plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. 9. There is no pleading that the sale deed, Ext.2 was an outcome of fraud on registration and the same was executed in contravention with the provision of Section 28 of Indian Registration Act. In absence of pleading, no issue can be framed. On an assessment of evidence on record and pleadings of the parties, both the courts have concurrently held that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. He has title over the same. There is no perversity in the findings of the court below. Thus the suit for permanent injunction is maintainable. The substantial question of law is answer accordingly. 10. In view of the forgoing discussions, the appeal sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.