Short Note : The plaintiff claims to be the wife of Bhadain whose first wife was Munnabai alias Mainabai. Defendant Jalam is the step brother of the deceased Bhadain. The plaintiff claimed title to the suit property on the basis of a sale deed (Ex.P-4) dated 16-6-61, executed by one Harinarain in favour of the plaintiff and a deed of gift (Ex.P-1) dated 15-4-1961 executed by Bhadain in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff the defendant got executed a deed of sale in his favour from Munnabai in respect of the suit property and on the basis of it he has illegally dispossessed her. She, therefore, filed the present suit for declaration of her title to the suit property, for possession thereof and for permanent injunction. 2. The defendant contested the suit. He denied that the plaintiff was the wife of Bhadain and contended that she was his concubine. He challenged the deed of gift said to have been executed by Bhadain in favour of the plaintiff. He also pleaded that the deed of sale (Ex.P-4) was a Benami transaction and the real owner was Bhadain. 3. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff. He held that the deed of gift as also the deed of sale on which the plaintiff placed reliance were duly proved. On appeal the findings of the trial Court were maintained and the appeal was dismissed. Held : The matter is concluded by the finding of fact which is binding in this appeal. So far as the transaction of gift is concerned, both the Courts below have found that the deed of gift has been duly proved. Nothing has been pointed out which may persuade this Court to interfere with the finding of fact of the Courts below. 4. As regards the deed of sale (Ex.P-4) Shri D.D. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the appellant, has raised two contentions. Firstly he submitted that it was specifically pleaded in the written statement that the sale deed (Ex.P-1) was executed Benami in favour of the plaintiff and that the real owner was Bhadain but no issue was framed by the trial Court on this material fact. Firstly he submitted that it was specifically pleaded in the written statement that the sale deed (Ex.P-1) was executed Benami in favour of the plaintiff and that the real owner was Bhadain but no issue was framed by the trial Court on this material fact. According to him when the point was raised by the appellant in the appellate Court is has wrongly considered the same on merits when in fact it ought to have remanded the suit for trial after framing an issue as to the 'Benami' nature of the transaction because in the absence of such an issue in the trial Court no evidence was led on the question. In this Court also he has pressed for a remand. The contention of Shri Dharmadhikari is not well founded. In the written statement the defendant has pleaded that the sale deed was Benami but he did not press for any issue on the point and went to trial without there being any issue on the said question. In the circumstances the defendant would be deemed to have abandoned the plea. The appellate Court, therefore, should not have allowed the defendant to raise the question in appeal. However, the appellate Court observed that the parties were alive to the said issue in the trial Court and on consideration of evidence adduced in the case the appellate Court found as a fact that the transaction of sale in favour of the plaintiff by Harinarain was not Benami. In this view of the matter no case for remand of the suit is made out. The parties went to trial with full knowledge that the question of Benami was in issue, had ample opportunity to adduce their evidence and led whatever evidence that was available. In the circumstances the absence of specific issue on the question of Benami nature of transaction of sale was a mere irregularity which has not resulted in failure of justice or caused any prejudice to the defendant. I, therefore, find no substance in this submission of learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Shri Dharmadhikari next contended that from the deed of sale itself it is apparant that the consideration for the sale was paid by Bhadain and not by Kunwarbai and that the appellate Court has lost sight of this material fact. I, therefore, find no substance in this submission of learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Shri Dharmadhikari next contended that from the deed of sale itself it is apparant that the consideration for the sale was paid by Bhadain and not by Kunwarbai and that the appellate Court has lost sight of this material fact. In the circumstances he submitted that as the transaction was in favour of a concubine it would be presumed to be Benami and the burden to prove that it was not so was on the plaintiff and the appellate Court has erred in law in wrongly placing the burden upon the defendant. This submission of Shri Dharmadhikari is also not well founded. It has been held by this Court in Daryaosingh Attarsingh and others v. Halki Bai Barelal and others, 1976 JLJ 583 that there is no presumption in Hindu Law that transactions standing in the name of wife are husband's transactions and the fact that the consideration has been paid by a person other than the ostensible owner is not necessarily in itself sufficient to establish that such transaction is Benami. It has also been held in the aforesaid case that the burden to prove that the transaction is Benami is on the person who asserts that it is Benami. Then Shri Dharmadhikari submitted that the plaintiff was not the wife of Bhadain but was his concubine. Even if that be so, it makes no difference. If in the case of a wife there is no presumption that a transaction standing in her name is a Benami transaction, there is no such presumption in the case of a concubine also because in the latter case the natural desire of the person would be to benefit his concubine. Therefore, this submission of learned counsel for the appellant also has no force. Thus, the finding of fact of the lower appellate Court is not vitiated on any ground and is binding on this Court. Appeal dismissed.