JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 16.04.2010 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant against judgment and decree dated 22.11.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gangapur, Bhilwara has been rejected. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the appellant plaintiff filed a suit seeking cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction against his father Udai Ram and other defendants, inter alia, with the averments that the suit property being agricultural land was unpartitioned and the plaintiff had ⅛th share in the suit property, however, the defendant No. 3 Dinesh got executed sale deed dated 25.07.2003 for a consideration of Rs. 1,15,000/- from only defendant No. 2 - Udai Ram, his father, and prayed for cancellation of sale deed dated 25.07.2003 and permanent injunction. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 (family members), inter alia, indicating that the sale was executed by defendant No. 2 - Udai Ram as Karta of the family for the necessity of the family and all the members of the family including the plaintiff were bound; allegations were made regarding the mannerism of the plaintiff regarding his being involved in consumption of drugs and being involved in gambling and that his wife and children were being maintained by Udai Ram; from the consideration of the suit land a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was placed in Fixed Deposit in the name of plaintiff's son Kishan Lal and another sum of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited in the Fixed Deposit in the name of his another son Laxman. 4. The transferee defendant No. 3 also filed his written statement and disputed the averments made in the plaint. 5. On behalf of the plaintiff - three witnesses were examined and five documents were exhibited; on behalf of the defendants - two witnesses were examined. 6. 4. The transferee defendant No. 3 also filed his written statement and disputed the averments made in the plaint. 5. On behalf of the plaintiff - three witnesses were examined and five documents were exhibited; on behalf of the defendants - two witnesses were examined. 6. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the suit property was joint, defendant Udai Ram was Karta of the family and all the sons and daughters had right in the joint property; as no decree for possession was sought, the plaintiff was not entitled for possession; on the issues pertaining to family necessity, the trial court came to the conclusion that the alienation of the suit property was made by defendant No. 2 for family necessity and, consequently, dismissed the suit. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the first appellate court after upholding the findings recorded by the trial court. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below fell in error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the appellant; once the Court reached the conclusion that the plaintiff had ⅛th share in the suit property, the cancellation of sale deed was only consequential; the finding of family necessity stands vitiated as admittedly the defendant No. 2 has put a sizable amount in fixed deposit and, therefore, the appeal give rise to substantial questions of law and the same deserves to be admitted. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 10. Both the courts below have concurrently found that though the appellant had ⅛th share in the suit property, the defendant No. 2 - Udai Ram, father of the plaintiff, was Karta of the joint family and that he transferred the suit property for family necessity; the finding recorded by the courts below on the issue of family necessity is essentially a finding of fact, which is concluded by concurrent judgments. 11. 11. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellant regarding the defendant No. 2 - Udai Ram placing a part of the sale consideration in Fixed Deposit, which by itself shows lack of family necessity is concerned, it is not always necessary that the Karta of the family is required to sell the property only for the purpose of immediately spending the sum derived out of the sale consideration; putting the amount in Fixed Deposit in the names of plaintiff's sons against whom averments about his mannerism have been made also essentially amounts to family necessity to secure the future of the said children. 12. Except for the submission noted above, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any perversity in the finding recorded by both the courts below and, as such, the appeal filed by the appellant does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******