Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. In Execution of an eviction decree passed, against one Laxman Mahto, respondent No. 3 herein vide Execution Case No. 20 of 1986, delivery of possession was effected in favour of the decree holders-respondents 1 and 2 and the appellants herein thereafter claimed that they were also dispossessed from their property, which was not the subject matter of either the decree or the execution proceeding. 2. Accordingly, an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 25 of 1986. In the said proceeding the appellants claimed to have purchased the lands of plot No. 190 110 by a registered sale deed dated 6.7.1962 from the said Laxman Mahto. 3. The learned Munsif, 1st Court, Darbhanga, on the basis of evidence brought on record came to a finding that the sale deed dated 6,7.1962 (Ext. 1) in their favour was farzi transaction. The said finding has been confirmed in appeal by the impugned judgment dated 11.10.1991, passed by the District Judge, Darbhanga, in Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1991. 4. In the present second Appeal, in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below and thereby holding the title deed (Ext. 1) in favour of the appellants, in respect of the land in question to be farzi, I am not in a position to disturb the same. 5. The objectors-appellants who are none else but son in law and daughter of the judgment debtor, Laxman Mahto, have alleged transfer therefore, did not acquire any title through Ext. 1 Surprisingly Laxman Mahto also kept himself away from the scene. 6. I further find that since the appellants had no title over the said 16 dhurs land of plot No. 19110, an objection at their instance that delivery of possession was effected on 18.11.1986 over some lands beyond the decree under execution was not tenable. However, the Courts below found that delivery of possession was effected over the lands, strictly as per the boundaries of the land given in the decree. 7. However, the Courts below found that delivery of possession was effected over the lands, strictly as per the boundaries of the land given in the decree. 7. In the aforesaid circumstance, without going into the question of maintainability of the present second miscellaneous appeal raised by the respondent No. 1, I do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and thereby the impugned judgment orders does not require any interference by this Court at this stage. 8. I find no merit in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 9. Let the Lower Court records be sent down forthwith.