JUDGMENT Mahesh Grover, J.:- This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 7.11.2009 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 20.4.2010. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit claiming himself to be in possession of the property which is described in the plaint. He pleaded that there was a sale deed in his favour dated 3.5.1990 qua 2 kanals 10 marlas of land and two agreements to sell dated 10.1.1990 and 12.4.1990 on the basis of which he was put in possession of the area which was the subject matter of agreements to sell. He thus pleaded that he is in possession of the property since 1990 and prayed for injunction as a result of these pleadings. 3. The respondents denied the averments made in the plaint and pleaded that the agreements to sell had never been acted upon and only a sale deed qua 2 kanals 10 marlas was handed over to the appellant in view of the fact that the sale had been executed qua this. The averments that money was received by the respondents and possession of the suit land was handed over to the appellant have also been denied. 4. The parties went to trial on numerous issues out of which the relevant ones are issues No.1 and 3 which are extracted as under :- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to get permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. ...... 3. Whether the agreements of sale contained material alterations and are waste paper?OPD” 5. The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the appellant for permanent injunction and dismissed the same regarding 5 kanals of land comprised in Khasra No.63//1(5-0). Appeal against the judgment of the trial Court was dismissed by the first Appellate Court. Both the Courts below concluded that the appellant has failed to prove his case quo 5 kanals of land and dismissed the same which has resulted in filing of the present regular second appeal wherein learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and have been arrived at by misreading of evidence. It was contended that the appellant had produced sufficient evidence in the form of revenue documents to show his possession over 5 kanals of land which has not been considered in the right perspective. It was contended that the appellant had produced sufficient evidence in the form of revenue documents to show his possession over 5 kanals of land which has not been considered in the right perspective. He prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgments. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. 7. It is settled principle of law that the agreement to sell does not confer any title upon a person. In any eventuality, the case of the appellant is not regarding title but regarding possession of the property which is subject-matter of the agreements to sell. The first Appellate Court has noticed that the agreements to sell Exs.P-1 and P-4 do not contain a recital regarding handing over of the possession to the appellant. Apart from this, there is no other material to show that the possession was ever with the appellant. In the absence of this crucial piece of evidence which was germane to the case of the appellant, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be termed to be erroneous. No substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid, the present appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Consequently, the stay application is also dismissed. ------------