his name mutated in revenue record with effect from the year 2007-08. Further, on the basis of said false entries compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Oflicer, Manthani, while acquiring land in Sy.Nos.4l0 and 415 admeasuring Ac.0-34 guntas and Ac.I-24 gunras, fbr Sripada Project was taken by defendant No.l. It is argued that though titte deed is not produced by plaintiff No. l, the very admission of sale of suit schedule propefty by Manohara Bai in favour of ptaintiff No. I by delendant No. I as D.W. I is sufficient to prove the title of plaintiffs. It is argued that the admitted facts need not be proven as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Once the title of the plaintiffs is established rhe onus shifts to def'endant No. l to prove that plaintiff No.1 has sold suit schedule propefty under an unregistered sale deed and show the basis for issuance of l3-B and I l-C certificates and mutation. In the instant case, def-endant No. I is clairning that he has lost the unregistered sale deed which was exccuted by plaintifl No. I . Not only there is failure to produce the unregistered sale deed, but there is also failure to examine any witness allegedly in whose presence plaintiff No. I executed unregistered sale deed. Except the revenue records, which are fabricated by defendant No.1 by abusing his position as Sarpanch, there is no evidence whatsoever in l-avour of delendant No. [, as such it is argued that there are no grounds to interf'ere
