JUDGMENT : Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. 1. Appellant-plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC to challenge judgment dated 15.01.2019, passed by Additional District Judge, Khairwara, District Udaipur (for short, 'learned lower appellate Court'), whereby learned lower appellate Court has affirmed judgment and decree dated 11.12.2012, passed by Civil judge (Sr. Div.), Khairwara (for short, 'learned trial Court') dismissing their suit for declaring the sale-deed null and void and perpetual injunction. 2. The facts, in brief, are that appellants laid a suit against respondents-defendants for cancellation of sale-deed and permanent injunction, inter-alia, claiming that plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 are sons of defendant No. 2 Surajmal and having equal share with defendant No. 2 & 3 in the ancestral agricultural land situated in Gumanpura, Patwar Halka Dhelna, Tehsil Khairwara being co-sharers. It was averred that no co-sharer can alienate or transfer the undivided ancestral property to any person yet defendant-respondent No. 2 Surajmal without any legal necessity executed registered sale-deed on 03.05.1999 in favour of defendant No. 1 Heeralal showing amount of consideration as Rs. 30,000/- but in fact did not receive any consideration amount who had earlier mortgaged the land of two Arajis in favour of Heeralal in contravention of provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. For challenging the same, precisely, it was emphasized in the plaint that sale-deed and mortgage deed were illegally got executed without any consideration and are of no avail and consequence so far as the rights of appellant-plaintiffs are concerned and the property being joint Hindu family property, the sale-deed so executed has no value in eye of law and as such liable to be declared illegal and ineffective and same be cancelled. Besides that, the appellants have also prayed for grant of perpetual injunction to the effect that defendant No. 1 be restrained to use the agricultural land in question and raise any construction thereon, or sale the same to any other person. 3. The suit was contested by respondent-defendant No. 1 by filing written statement refuting the averments of plaint. Resisting the claim of plaintiff-appellants, it was averred that the agricultural land in question is self-acquired of defendant No. 2 and he had every right to alienate the same. It was further averred that the plaintiff-appellants filed a suit before Assistant District Collector, Salumber challenging the sale in his favour but was unable to get any interim relief therefrom. Resisting the claim of plaintiff-appellants, it was averred that the agricultural land in question is self-acquired of defendant No. 2 and he had every right to alienate the same. It was further averred that the plaintiff-appellants filed a suit before Assistant District Collector, Salumber challenging the sale in his favour but was unable to get any interim relief therefrom. The defendant No. 1 further pleaded that earlier also he was in possession of the land as it was mortgaged with him and legal possession was handed over to him on the basis of sale-deed. It was further stated that Surajmal sold the land to meet out expenses of constructing house and marriage of his daughter. Defendant No. 1 also raised objection about maintainability of the suit stating that only the revenue court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. 4. Defendant No. 2 & 3, who filed a separate written statement, though admitted the pedigree of appellant-plaintiffs and stated that only the land of Araji No. 338 and 365 was earlier mortgaged which too was illegal. Supporting the appellant-plaintiffs it is their case that there was no necessity and execution of sale-deed by defendant No. 1 was a fraud played on them. 5. The defendant No. 4 and 5, who were impleaded during pendency of the suit being other co-sharer of the ancestral land, also filed written statements and pleaded that they are in possession of Araji Nos. 371 and 372 and they reinforced the plea of appellant-plaintiffs that alleged sale-deed was executed without any legal necessity and without consideration amount having been received by defendant No. 2 Surajmal, who even had no right to sale the ancestral land in possession of appellant-plaintiffs. They however, not objected to the possession of defendant No. 3 Laxman on the land of Khasra No. 365 & 338. 6. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, settled seven issues for determination. The rival parties led their evidence and also produced documentary evidence. After conclusion of the evidence, learned trial Court, upon marshaling of evidence objectively, found that the appellants failed to prove their case. The learned trial Court recorded a definite finding that the evidence, which is produced on behalf of appellants, is insufficient to prove their case. The rival parties led their evidence and also produced documentary evidence. After conclusion of the evidence, learned trial Court, upon marshaling of evidence objectively, found that the appellants failed to prove their case. The learned trial Court recorded a definite finding that the evidence, which is produced on behalf of appellants, is insufficient to prove their case. The learned trial Court found that in view of registered instrument and sans any cogent evidence to dislodge presumption about validity of registered instrument, appellants are not entitled for the reliefs craved and resultantly dismissed the suit. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of learned trial Court, appellants approached learned lower appellate Court and the learned lower appellate Court, upon examining the evidence de novo, has fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of learned trial Court on the crucial issues which eventually entailed rejection of the appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the impugned judgment and also scanned record of the case. 9. There remains no quarrel that for maintaining second appeal an aggrieved party is required to plead and prove existence of substantial question of law. In the present matter, both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact based on sound appreciation of evidence. Although, learned counsel for the appellants has made a gesture towards some of the proposed substantial questions of law, but, I am afraid, in the backdrop of available material, these are not even questions of law much less substantial questions of law. The concurrent finding of both the Courts below is pure and simple finding of fact based on sound appreciation of evidence. The learned trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the appellant-plaintiffs have failed to prove that defendant No. 2 sold the land in favour of defendant No. 1 without any legal necessity or under his duress in an intoxicated state and further held that Surajmal had sold only his 1/15 share in the ancestral properly whereas his share in the entire property comes to 1/5 as such there is no justification for cancellation of sale-deed executed in favour of purchaser defendant No. 1 Heeralal. Therefore, inability of the appellants in discharging their burden entailed rejection of the suit and appeal. Therefore, inability of the appellants in discharging their burden entailed rejection of the suit and appeal. When the basis of suit to question validity of sale-deed could not be proved due to failure of the appellants, I am afraid, no question of law is either foreseeable or arising for consideration. 10. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants regarding rejection of their application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the learned lower appellate Court is also not weighty and substantial. Learned lower appellate Court, while considering the prayer for taking additional evidence on record, has thoroughly examined the documents and also ramification of the additional evidence on the touchstone of reliefs desired in the suit. Taking into consideration the overall scenario, the learned lower appellate Court in its discretion declined payer of the appellants. 11. It is trite that an appellate Court before admitting additional evidence has to examine relevancy and necessity of such evidence. Although discretion is given to the appellate Court to receive and admit additional evidence, however, such discretion is not arbitrary but judicial one circumscribed by the limitations prescribed in Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. In the backdrop of lis involved in the matter, the discretion exercised by learned lower appellate Court cannot be faulted. Therefore, the proposed substantial question of law in this regard is superfluous and worth rejection. 12. In overall scenario, it has come on record that defendant No. 2 Surajmal sold the land to defendant No. 1 Heeralal lesser than his share in the ancestral HUF property and the appellants have miserably failed to prove the sale-deed to be a sham or nominal one. That apart, there is no tangible evidence to show that the sale-deed was got registered under duress or in drunken state of defendant No. 2, or the same was executed without any legal necessity. Thus, I feel disinclined to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. 13. In view thereof, sans involvement of any substantial question of law, the instant appeal fails and same is hereby rejected.