JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - This is plaintiff’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit property, was dismissed. 2. The appellant filed the present suit against the defendant respondents seeking declaration that he is owner in possession of 1/6th share of land measuring 18 kanals comprised in rectangle and killa No.83//11 (8-0), 20(8-0), 21(2-0 min) apart from his own recorded share in the land measuring 113 kanals 12 marlas and the defendants have no concern with the same. It was alleged that name of defendant No.2 was wrongly reflected in the revenue record and the plaintiff was entitled to get the same corrected in his favour. It was further alleged that on 15.10.1979, defendants entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid land at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per killa and received a sum of Rs.1500/- as earnest money. The possession was also delivered to the plaintiff-appellant. It is alleged that since the date of agreement dated 15.10.1979, the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property to the knowledge of the respondents and in a hostile manner and the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and has become owner by adverse possession. It was further alleged that defendant No.1 left the village many years ago and became Sanyasi and his whereabouts are not known. He had taken an additional amount of Rs.1000/- on 27.5. 1981. Since the defendants are interfering into the possession of the plaintiff, necessity arose to file the present suit. 3. The suit was contested by defendant No.2 by filing written statement. It was alleged that plaintiff has no concern with the suit property and defendant No.1 never entered into an agreement dated 15.10.1979, neither he received any amount as alleged nor possession was delivered. It was further stated that defendant No.2 was in possession of the suit property and the entries were corrected in favour of defendant No.2. Since the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land, there was no question of his possession being interfered with by the defendants. Denying other allegations, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 4. It was further stated that defendant No.2 was in possession of the suit property and the entries were corrected in favour of defendant No.2. Since the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land, there was no question of his possession being interfered with by the defendants. Denying other allegations, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 4. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant failed to establish that he had acquired ownership or possession of the suit property under the agreement to sell Ex.P1. The finding was also returned against the appellant holding that appellant as well as Ramji Lal respondent were co-sharers and the possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be possession of all the cosharers. The plea of adverse possession of the appellant was also not accepted. 5. Still not satisfied, the present appeal has been filed before this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. 7. It is well settled that merely on the basis of an agreement to sell the ownership of the property cannot be transferred. The appellant could seek specific performance of the aforesaid alleged agreement to sell. However, no such suit has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant on the basis of the aforesaid agreement and therefore, the same is of no help to him. 8. Alternative plea of the appellant that he has become owner by way of adverse possession cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of this Court in Bhim Singh and others v. Zile Singh and others, [2006(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1530] : 2006 (3) RCR(Civil) 97. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any material infirmity in the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Thus, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ------------------------