Short Note : 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit claiming cancellation of a sale-deed Ex. D-1 dated 6-11-67 executed by defendant No. 3 Smt. Rani Dulaiya in favour of defendants 1 & 2 transferring 1984 acres of land for a consideration of Rs. 1,500. The plaintiff's father Kamtaprasad and his two brothers Ramkrishna and Chhotelal are all dead. Defendant No.3 Rani Dulaiya is the widow of Ramkrishna, one of the brothers of Kamtaprasad. The plaintiff's case is that these lands belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of plaintiff's father and his brothers; after the death of the plaintiff's father and his brothers, the plaintiffs alone had inherited these lands and that defendant No.3 had no transferable interest in the same so that the sale-deed Ex. D 1 executed by her in favour of defendants Nos. 1 & 2 does not convey any title to the purchasers. Substantially a declaration to that effect has been claimed even though the relief is described as one for cancellation of the sale-deed. The defendant No.3 Rani Dulaiya remained exparte after filing her written statement supporting the common defence of the other defendants. The defence of the remaining defendants was that the property belonged exclusively to Ramkrishna and not to the Hindu Undivided Family and that defendant No.4 alone being its owner after the death of Ramkrishna, the title to the same was validly conveyed to defendants 1 & 2. At any rate, the title claimed by the plaintiff was denied and it was denied that the property at any time belonged to the Hindu Univided Family or that there was any such Hindu Undivided Family as alleged. 2. The trial Court rejected the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the District Court has dismissed their first appeal. It has been held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that there was any Hindu Undivided Family as claimed by the plaintiff and that the property belonged to that Hindu Undivided Family to begin with. It was also held that defendant No. 3 Rani Dulaiya was in exclusive possession of these lands at least from the year 1943 in her own right. The trial Court's decree dismissing the suit was, therefore, affirmed. Held: The first question is whether these lands initially belonged to the joint family as claimed by the plaintiffs. It was also held that defendant No. 3 Rani Dulaiya was in exclusive possession of these lands at least from the year 1943 in her own right. The trial Court's decree dismissing the suit was, therefore, affirmed. Held: The first question is whether these lands initially belonged to the joint family as claimed by the plaintiffs. This is a question of fact and the finding thereon is based on evidence. No infirmity in that finding justifying interference with the same in a second appeal has been pointed out. Another finding of fact of the first appeal Court is that defendant No.3 Rani Dulaiya was in exclusive possession of these lands at least from 1943/44 till they were sold by Ex. D-1 dated 6-11-1967 by her to defendants 1 & 2. This finding of fact also is not shown to suffer from any infirmity permitting interference in second appeal. In view of these findings, this appeal must obviously fail. 3. The main argument of Shri S. C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants, is that the burden was wrongly placed on the plaintiffs requiring them to prove that these lands were initially the property of the joint family and was ancestral in nature. The argument is mentioned only to be rejected because it has no substance. See Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and others, AIR 1954 SC 379 . 4. The other argument of Shri Chaturvedi is based on Ex. P-1 at page 65 of the paper-book. There is nothing in the document to indicate that the same related to the lands in question. This alone is sufficient to require no further consideration of his argument on the point. At any rate, the document is referred only for advancing the argument that the same, which is an order dated 5-1-43, shows that there was some dispute between defendant No.3 and plaintiff Gauri Shankar. It is difficult to appreciate how the mere fact of some dispute, if any, between these two can assist the plaintiff's case. Moreover, as earlier stated there is nothing in this document or in any other part of the evidence brought to my notice to indicate that Ex. P-1 relates to the land which is the subject matter of the suit. Appeal dismissed.