JUDGMENT : H.P.SANDESH, J. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court that the plaintiff No.1 who is the wife of Lingegowda and also three daughters have filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession claiming that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties and also contend that they are entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession. Defendant No.2 who appeared before the Court has filed the written statement contending that he is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the plaintiffs are not entitled for 1/5 th share as claimed in the plaint. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 3. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. PW1 who is the wife of Lingegowda examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P47. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined as DW1 and two witnesses examined as DW2 and DW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D22. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the sale was made for the legal necessities and in order to prove that remaining properties are ancestral and joint families properties, no document is placed on record and the Trial Court held that only with an intention to make wrongful gain, in collusion with defendant No.1, the suit is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession and the Trial Court also taken note of admission elicited from the mouth of witness - PW1 who categorically admitted that property was sold for clearing the loan and the same is for legal necessity and hence, dismissed the suit. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.12/2018. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.12/2018. The First Appellate Court also on re- appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that husband of plaintiff No.1 namely, late Lingegowda along with his son i.e., defendant No.1 had availed the loan from State Bank of Mysuru, Mandya. PW1 stated that loan has been repaid by selling the tractor, but nothing is placed on record to show that the loan was cleared by selling the tractor and also taken note of answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 that her husband was suffering from ill-health and she has spent money for his treatment. The Trial Court further observed that before executing the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2, defendant No.1 has executed an agreement of sale dated 03.11.2005 in favour of defendant No.2 The recitals of said sale agreement which is marked as Ex.D1 that the agreement is being executed a sd fno.1 requires funds for the upbringing of his minor children and for repayment of the mortgage loan at State Bank of Mysuru, Mandya and it is stated that fund is required for domestic needs and also executed the sale deed dated 27.02.2006 in favour of defendant No.2 pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 03.11.2005 and also take note of availing of loan and used of the sale consideration for the treatment of PW1’s husband and detail discussion was made that sale was made for the legal necessity and in order to prove that remaining properties belongs to joint family, nothing is placed on record and both the Courts have taken note of the material on record. The First Appellate Court in paragraph 30 also made it clear that the sale was made in favour of defendant No.2 by kartha of the family of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and no document is placed on record to prove that the other property is a family property and detail reasons are given on reassessment of material on record and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court not committed any error and hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit. Further, the counsel would vehemently contend that Ex.P1 to P47 demonstrate that suit schedule properties stand in the name of the father of the plaintiffs and the First Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs have not prove the fact that the properties are ancestral and joint family properties. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court also not considered the material on record particularly Ex.D40 which is executed by defendant No.1 who is the wife and children only. Hence, the counsel would vehemently contend that this Court has to frame the substantive questions of law admitting the appeal since both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that earlier, availed the loan from the bank and the kartha of the family i.e., the father had sold the property along with his son i.e., defendant No.1 and same is also for family necessity that is for clearance of bank loan which was availed by the family members. There is clear admission on the part of PW1 that in order to meet the medical expenses of her husband, sale was made and hence, the same is also for the family necessity. In respect of other properties are concerned, nothing is placed on record to show that the said properties belong to ancestral and joint family. Both the Courts have taken note of factual aspects as well as question of law. The answer given by PW1 is very clear with regard to sale of the property as well as availing of loan from the bank and to clear the said loan, the property was sold. When such admission is given, the sale is also for the legal necessity, I do not find any error on the part of both the Courts in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs considering the material on record and no perversity is found in consideration of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the Courts. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame the substantive questions of law. 7. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame the substantive questions of law. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: Order The second appeal is dismissed.