JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. This is plaintiffs' second appeal under section 100,C.P.C. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 15.6.1995 executed by his father -Rampher in favour of wife of plaintiff's brother and will deed dated 16.6.1995 executed by his father in favour of plaintiff's brother-Hariram and further prayed for permanent injunction in respect of the property in dispute. The trial court partly decreed the suit cancelling the will deed. However, the trial court dismissed the suit in respect of cancellation of the sale deed. Dissatisfied by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff-appellant preferred regular appeal which has also been dismissed by the appellate court affirming the findings of the trial court. It is urged by the learned counsel for appellant that both the courts below have erred in not cancelling the sale deed although they have found that the will was forged one. It is further submitted that land in question was an ancestral property and the father did not have a right to transfer in respect of the property mentioned in schedule -A. Sri S.D. Tiwari, appearing for the caveator-defendants, contends that plaintiff-appellant has filed the suit after death of his father-Rampher and the sale deed was executed by him on due consideration. He also submits that at the time of execution of the sale deed he was in proper state of mind. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Perusal of the pleadings shows that plea regarding ancestral property has not been taken by the plaintiff in his plaint. Rather in paragraph 3 of the plaint, it has been admitted that his father was exclusive owner of the property, and there is no averment that property was an ancestral property. Both the courts below have recorded finding of fact that late Rampher was owner of the property and the sale deed executed by him is valid one. The courts below have considered at length oral as well as documentary evidence. The plaintiff in his statement has admitted that his bather and his brother went for execution of the sale deed and there is recital in the sale deed that rupees thirty thousand was paid to late Rampher. The courts below have also found that defendant-Hariram was taking care of his father. The Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others Vs. The courts below have also found that defendant-Hariram was taking care of his father. The Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others Vs. S.N. Goyal, ( AIR 2008 SC 2594 ), in paragraph no. 9 of the judgment, has considered as to what is a substantial question of law ? Relevant extract of the judgment is as under : "9.1) Second appeals would lie in cases which involve substantial questions of law. The word 'substantial' prefixed to 'question of law' does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. 'Substantial questions of law' means not only substantial questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties. In the context of section 100 CPC, any question of law which affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing in the final outcome, will not be a substantial question of law. Where there is a clear and settled enunciation on a question of law, by this Court or by the High Court concerned, it cannot be said that the case involves a substantial question of law. It is said that a substantial question of law arises when a question of law, which is not finally settled by this court (or by the concerned High Court so far as the State is concerned), arises for consideration in the case. But this statement has to be understood in the correct perspective. Where there is a clear enunciation of law and the lower court has followed or rightly applied such clear enunciation of law, obviously the case will not be considered as giving rise to a substantial question of law, even if the question of law may be one of general importance. Where there is a clear enunciation of law and the lower court has followed or rightly applied such clear enunciation of law, obviously the case will not be considered as giving rise to a substantial question of law, even if the question of law may be one of general importance. On the other hand, if there is a clear enunciation of law by this Court (or by the concerned High Court), but the lower court had ignored or misinterpreted or misapplied the same, and correct application of the law as declared or enunciated by this Court (or the concerned High Court) would have led to a different decision, the appeal would involve a substantial question of law as between the parties. Even where there is an enunciation of law by this court (or the concerned High Court) and the same has been followed by the lower court, if the appellant is able to persuade the High Court that the enunciated legal position needs reconsideration, alteration, modification or clarification or that there is a need to resolve an apparent conflict between two view points, it can be said that a substantial question of law arises for consideration. There cannot, therefore, be a strait-jacket definition as to when a substantial question of law arises in a case." After hearing submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, I find that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.