Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. For the reasons stated in the applications the delay in re-filing and filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The defendants have lost concurrently lost before the two Courts below. A suit for declaration and for mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiffs claiming that they are owner in possession of the suit land and that the defendants should execute the sale- deed in their favour. The plaintiffs claimed that Mam Raj was originally in possession of the suit property and after his death his son Sadhu Ram came into possession. Sadhu Ram also died. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the aforesaid Mam Raj and Sadhu Ram. Mam Raj had made the land cultivable and the said land had been leased out to him for a period of years. There was a scheme of the State Government and under the aforesaid scheme, the land could be allotted to a person who had made the same cultivable, after depositing the entire price in instalments. The plaintiffs further claimed that the entire sale consideration of the aforesaid land had been deposited by mam Raj and even sale deed was written in his favour by the defendants. However, the said sale deed was not formally registered. The plaintiffs came to know about the aforesaid fact much later, when they realised that the defendants were trying to give the forcible possession of the land to somebody else. Therefore, the suit in question was filed. 3. The defendants contested the suit and maintained that the land had been leased out to Mam Raj for a period of 10 years but after the expiry neither he nor anybody else on his behalf had any right to continue in possession. The deposit of the sale consideration and writing of the sale deed in favour of mam Raj were not denied. 4. Both the Courts below have found it as a fact that Mam Raj was in possession of the suit land and had deposited the sale consideration. It was also found that the sale deed had been executed in his favour under the scheme and after the full sale price had been paid by him. However, the said sale deed had not been formally registered. It was also found that the sale deed had been executed in his favour under the scheme and after the full sale price had been paid by him. However, the said sale deed had not been formally registered. In these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed and the defendants were directed to execute the formal sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The appeal of the defendants failed before the learned first appellate Court. 5. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record. 6. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.