Judgment VINEY MITTAL and j. JJ. 1. The plaintiff has lost before the learned first appellate Court. He filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated November 16,1996 claimed to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. He also claimed that he had paid the earnest money of Rs.3,00,000/- and the sale deed was to be executed on or before May 16,1997. 2. The plaintiff claimed that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but the defendant did not choose to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the suit was filed. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. It was claimed that the plaintiff was engaged in the business of money lending and the defendant was an agriculturist. It was, thus, claimed that no agreement, as claimed by the plaintiff, had ever been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant also denied the receipt of any earnest money. Some transactions were detailed with regard to payment of loan by the plaintiff to the defendant and return of the same by the defendant to the plaintiff. 4. The learned trial Court found that the agreement in question was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff but held that the agreement in question was not an agreement of sale of the land but was in fact only an agreement of security for repayment of the money. 5. Consequently, the claim of the plaintiff for specific performance was rejected but his suit was decreed for recovery of Rs.3 lacs along with interest. The defendant took up the matter in appeal. No appeal was ever filed by the plaintiff. As a matter of fact ,the plaintiff accepted the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The learned first appellate Court reappraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that not only the execution of the agreement in question was doubtful but also held that nothing had been shown that any consideration had ever been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant with regard to the agreement in question. Consequently, the agreement in question was held to be without consideration. The appeal filed by the defendant was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 6. Consequently, the agreement in question was held to be without consideration. The appeal filed by the defendant was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 6. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal dismissed.