ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24th January, 1997 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Appeal No. 69-A/96, whereby the first appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.2.1996 passed by Civil Judge Class 2, Alot, in Civil Suit, No. 38-A/95. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed and for mesne profit against the respondents. Plaintiff is a son of defendant No.2 Sajjan Singh. It is alleged that the land bearing survey No. 171/1 which is an agricultura1land was owned by Sajjan Singh, who executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 Bhagwan Singh. Plaintiff has pleaded that the transaction in question was not an out and out sale and it was usufructury. There was an oral understanding between defendant No.2 Sajjan Singh and Bhagwan Singh that the land shall be reconveyed to Sajjan Singh on payment of return consideration and conveyance shall be executed. The two Courts below concurrently held that oral condition of re-conveyance is not found proved and dismissed the suit. Hence, this second appeal. 4. This second appeal was admitted by this Court on 31.3.1998 on the following substantial question of law : "Whether the first appellate Court has committed an error of law in dislodging and demolishing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court contrary to the principles of law laid down in AIR 1974 SC 405 (Baburao Bagaji Karemore and others v. Govind and others)?" The gist of the said question is whether the first appellate Court has erred in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court while considering the judgment of the trial Court without any cogent reason. This question does not arise in the present suit. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below against the plaintiff and the impugned judgment is of affirmance. So the judgment on the basis of which question is formulated does not apply to the present case. 5. This question does not arise in the present suit. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below against the plaintiff and the impugned judgment is of affirmance. So the judgment on the basis of which question is formulated does not apply to the present case. 5. During the hearing of this appeal the counsel for the appellant has filed I.A. No. 11170/08 wherein he has proposed substantial question of law : "Whether Lower appellate Court erred in law in not considering that from the pleadings and evidence on record it is proved Ex. P-1 is not an out and out sale but is a mortgage and so according to section 165 (2) (a) (b) and (c) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code possession of respondent No. 1 becomes of a trespasser and he is bound to return it to the appellants?" The gist of the aforesaid proposed question is whether on the premises that the disputed property is usufructuory the transaction in question is usufrutuory mortgage and since the defendant is in possession for more than six years then as per section 165 (2) (a) (b) and (c) of M.P. Land Revenue Code he is deemed to remain in possession. In fact this question also does not arise for consideration in the present case. The two Courts below have concurrently found that the transaction in question is not mortgaged but it is an out and out sale, and the pleading about the oral agreement by the plaintiff is not found proved by the two Courts below. The findings on the question whether there was an oral agreement for re-conveyance is purely a finding of fact, which cannot be interfered in the second appeal. Accordingly, appeal is hereby dismissed.