1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 139 of 2009 [Gangadhar Fakirchand Raghute & ors. Vs. Urmila Anil Bhagdikar & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.G. Ramteke, Adv., for the appellants. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 06th April, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. Plaintiff challenged the alienation in favour of defendant no.3, and in the counter- claim, the defendant no.3 had prayed for possession of property, of which she had a sale- deed in her favour. 3. The fact of alienation is admitted. What is challenged is right of defendant no.1 to alienate. 4. It was the burden of the plaintiff to prove that the defendant no.1 had no right to alienate the property, which the plaintiff has failed to prove. 5. Said finding is confirmed by the Appellate Court. 2 6. This finding is not shown to be perverse, or otherwise vitiated due to any illegality. 7. Sole ground on which the appellate decree is challenged is that the defendant no.3 did not enter the witness box. 8. The elementary doctrine as regards burden of proof is that facts admittedly need not be proved is connived at by the appellant. The issue before the Court was as to the legality of alienation and not the fact of execution of sale-deed. 9. It is an admitted fact that a photo copy of the sale-deed, alienation done through which was challenged, was on record, which is an a admitted document. Parties were not carrying any dispute or confusion as to the nature, extent etc., of the property in relation to which counter-claim was filed. 10. Questions of Law, as formulated by the appellant, to be Substantial Questions of Law are not involved in the case. 11. In the circumstances, appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 3