Short Note : 1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of plaintiff's title to several Khasra numbers and for possession of only one of them i.e. Khasra No 29/2, area 3.45 acres, mouza Kotaba, tahsil Dharam Jaigarh, district Raigarh. 2. Admittedly, the plaintiffs father Ghasiram was Bhumiswami of the said lands. On the death of Ghasiram about 30 years prior to the suit, his two sons, the plaintiff and Chirru, inherited those lands. There was then a partition between the two brothers and all these lands were allotted to the share of Chirru who died some time in the year 1967 or 1968. These facts are not in dispute. 3. The plaintiff's case is that on the death of his brother Chirru, he not having left behind any other heir, the plaintiff inherited these lands. It is this title of which declaration is sought. In addition, possession is claimed of Khasra No. 29/2 on the ground that the defendants have taken possession of the same claiming to be purchasers from Chirru. 4. The only relevant defence taken was that Khasra No. 29/2 was purchased by the defendants from Chirru by a sale-deed dated 12-10-1966. That sale-deed was, however, not filed in the Court. 5. The trial Court decreed the suit and that decree has been affirmed on appeal by the District Court. Held: There can be no serious dispute that the plaintiff's suit must succeed unless the defendants are able to prove purchase of Khasra No. 29/2 by them from plaintiff's brother Chirru. It is only in respect of this Khasra number that the defendants have contested the suit. Admittedly no attempt to prove this sole legal evidence was produced by the defendants. In the first appellate Court an application was made on 6-10-1970 under Order 41, rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, by the defendants for permission to produce and prove the original sale-deed. However, neither the original nor its copy was produced and no reason was assigned which could make out a cogent ground for allowing that application. The first appellate Court, therefore, rejected that application. This appeal was filed in 1971 and even up to the time of hearing, neither the original sale-deed nor even its copy has been filed by the defendants-appellants. Obviously there is no ground to interfere with the first appellate Court's order rejecting that application. The first appellate Court, therefore, rejected that application. This appeal was filed in 1971 and even up to the time of hearing, neither the original sale-deed nor even its copy has been filed by the defendants-appellants. Obviously there is no ground to interfere with the first appellate Court's order rejecting that application. In the absence of any proof of the alleged sale set up by the defendants, as earlier stated, the plaintiff's suit has to succeed. There is thus no ground to allow this. Appeal dismissed.