Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two Regular Second Appeals being r. S. A. No.90 of 2004 and R. S. A. No.91 of 2004 as the plaintiffs in both the cases are same and facts are also identical. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from R. S. A. No.91 of 2004. 2. The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. They filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement dated April 25, 1995 in favour of the original plaintiff Makhan Singh by defendant Sibbu. It was claimed that this land in question was to be sold for a total consideration of Rs.2,40,000/- per acre and the defendant had received Rs.2,18,000/- as earnest money. 3. Both the Courts below have found it as a fact that the agreement in question was merely executed as a security by the defendant for securing loan amount. Although a plea was taken by the defendant that the amount of loan had been re-paid but the said fact has been disbelieved by the Courts below and it has been held that the amount of loan was still payable to the plaintiffs. 4. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed for recovery of an amount of rs.2,18,000/- along with interest. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs before the learned first Appellate Court was also dismissed. Similarly, the appeal filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was also dismissed. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record. 5. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal dismissed.