The inclusion of a small area of land in a sale deed for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction to a particular Sub-Registry Office does not necessarily constitute fraud on the Law of Registration. Fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved by the party alleging it.

Dharampal Sinha, J.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Sri S.N. Sinha, 1st Additional District Judge, Darbhanga on 7.12.1977 in Tide Appeal No. 127 of 1974/7 of 1977 affirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed on 19.9.1974 in Title Suit No. 276 of 1968/2 of 1974.

2. The appellants herein were defendants 1st party against whom Respondent 1st party in the appeal (who were the plaintiffs) had instituted the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession besides mesne profits in respect of the properties involved in the suit. With regard to the land in suit Jadu Rai, respondent 3rd party (defendant 3rd party before the trial court) had executed two sale-deeds--one dated 14.9.1965 (Ext. I/A) in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents 1st party and another sale-deed dated 7.2.1996 (Ext. A2) in favour of the appellants but in the benami name of the Damodar Rai, Respondent-defendant 2nd party.

3. At the time of admission of this second appeal the substantial question of law involved in this second appeal was formulated as follows:

The substantial question of law Involved in this appeal is as to whether the finding that there was no fraud on registration has been recorded in accordance with law.

4. In the context of the formulation of the point for consideration in this second appeal and in view of the fact that the learned Counsel for both the sides have confined their arguments only with regard to this question, it is not necessary to refer the details of other facts of the case, and only facts relevant for consideration of the question raised in this appeal need to be stated: Jadu Rai admittedly was the previous owner of the property involved in the suit as both the contesting parties claim to have purchased the land in suit, The plaintiffs-respondents 1st party through their purchase from Jadu Rai under the sale deed (Ext. I/A) made their claim of title over the suit property. It seems that Jadu Rai had executed four documents in all relating to suit property. He executed a contract for sale in favour of the appellants which is dated 24.4.1965, and that has been brought on the record as Ex. D/l. On 14.9.1965 Jadu Rai executed a sale deed in favour of Respondent 1st party, which has been brought on the record as Ext. I/A. On 21.12.1965 the said Jadu Rai executed a cancellation deed (Ext. C/l) cancelling the sale deed (Ext. I/A) dated 14.9.1965. On 7.2.1966 Jadu Rai executed a sale deed in favour of the appellants but in the name of Damodar Rai, respondent-defendant 2nd party, and that sale deed has been brought on the record as Ext. A-2. In the suit reliefs had been sought only with regard to 2 Bighas 5 Kathas and 15 1/4 Dhurs land situated in village Chamarjana alias Dudhia Mahal, which fell under the Sub-Registry Office of Kamtaul Subdivision in the District of Darbhanga. A perusal of the sale deed (Ext. I/A) on the basis of which the plaintiffrespondents 1st party had made a claim of title and possession uver the land involved in the suit, discloses that besides the land involved in th suit there was a mention of 5 Dhurs land of plot No. 28 Khata No. 71 of village Mashrakhpur Bankipur, which admittedly lay within the territorial jurisdiction of Registration Office of Samastipur and apparently that small area of 5 Dhurs of land was also purported to be sold by Jadu Rai to the purchasers.

5. In the written statement filed by Jadu Rai a plea had been taken in paragraph 43 that the 5 Dhurs land of plot No. 28 khata No. 71 had been nominally included in the sale deed, and during the course of evidence Jadu Rai had stated that he had no intention to sell that 5 Dhurs land of plot No. 28, 6. 7. 936 Masakhpur Bankipur. On this aspect the Learned Trial Court as also the Learned Appellate Court came to the finding that there was no fraud on the Law of Registration because of inclusion of that 5 Dhurs land situated in village Masrakhpur Bankipur.

6. Learned Counsel for