R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) -ONE of the plaintiffs in title Suit No. 98 of 1986 is in appeal against the judgment'and decree passed by the learned subordinate Judge (presently designated as civiljudge, Senior Division), Dhenkanal, dismissing the suit for partition. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS are daughters of Sudarsan moharana. Their case in short, is that their father died in 1975 leaving behind them, their mother Kokila and brother Sadananda, defendant No. 1. Their mother died in 1980. The suit lands described in schedule-A of the plaint, it is alleged, were the self-acquired property of their father and on his death it devolved upon them and their mother as well as brother Sadananda. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 transferred some of the suit lands to defendants 2 and 3 out of his share. Since there has been no partition of the suit land between, them and defendant No. 1 they requested the matter for amicable partition, but it was not acceded to. Hence the suit. ( 3 ) DEFENDANTS filed joint written statement and contested the suit. They denied the plaintiffs' case'that the suit land was the selfacquired property of their father Sudarsan and asserted that it was part of ancestral property and was being possessed by the joint family consisting of Sudarsan and his son defendant No. 1. Their further case was that sudarsan while alive lost his vision. So defendant No. 1 became Karta and manager of the joint family and while acting as such, he had incurred some loan from D. l. C. and others for family necessity. Since the 'family had no other source of income, defendant No. 1 in order to pay off the loan sold away the suit property to defendants 2 and 3 and put them in possession. In that view of the matter, when the suit land is no more available to the family the plaintiffs' suit for partition is not maintainable. ( 4 ) ON the above pleadings, learned trial court framed a number of issues and on discussion of the evidence adduced by the parties, decided all the issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. Hence the present appeal. ( 4 ) ON the above pleadings, learned trial court framed a number of issues and on discussion of the evidence adduced by the parties, decided all the issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. Hence the present appeal. ( 5 ) SHRI Patnaik, learned counsel for appellant, contends that the trial Court having found the suit land to be the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1, in absence of acceptable evidence that the sales effected by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 were for family necessity, plaintiff's prayer for partition should have been decreed. This being the sole contention, it is not necessary to go into the findings on all other issues arrived at by the trial Court. ( 6 ) THERE was no dispute that the suit land was part of ancestral property of Sudarsan, father ot plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. In that view of the matter and Sudarsan having died in 1975, by principle of notional partition, his one-third share as well as one-third share of his wife devolved upon the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 in equal shares. This being the legal position, there would have been no difficulty for the trial Court to pass a decree for partition as prayed for by the plaintiffs. But it could not be done so since it was no more available for partition. It may be reiterated is that the case of defendant No. 1 is the written statement is that he while acting as Karta of the family since the time of his father had alienated the suit land for legal necessity of the family. This fact was not refuted by the plaintiffs by amending their pleading. Since there was no challenge to the validity of transfer of the suit land no evidence was led by defendant No. 1 to prove the legal necessity. It needs no mention that if the facts pleaded by the plaintiffs are refuted by the defendant, then it is for the former to prove the facts so pleaded by leading evidence. Since there was no challenge to the validity of transfer of the suit land no evidence was led by defendant No. 1 to prove the legal necessity. It needs no mention that if the facts pleaded by the plaintiffs are refuted by the defendant, then it is for the former to prove the facts so pleaded by leading evidence. In the present case the plaintiffs having not challenged the case of defendant No. 1 about the legal necessity of the family necessitating transfer of the suit land any evidence led by them in that regard cannot be looked into In the above view of the matter and no other contention having been raised challenging the findings on other issues. I have no other option but to confirm the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .