Paramjeet Singh, J. The suit out of which this regular second appeal arises was for prohibitory and mandatory injunction whereby appellant-plaintiff had prayed for restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 from interfering in his possession over the disputed plot and from alienating it to any other person or creating any charge over it and also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to transfer the ownership of the disputed plot in favour of plaintiff. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 06.12.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.2013. 2. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts relevant for disposal of this regular second appeal are that plaintiff-Devender Kumar approached the Civil Court seeking a decree for prohibitory and mandatory injunction alleging that defendants No. 1 and 2 (Om Parkash son of Gopal Ram) purchased the disputed plot in an open auction, however, conveyance deed was not executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. Meanwhile, defendants No. 1 and 2 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 6,05,000/- vide agreement to sell dated 14.02.2007. The entire sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff to defendants No. 1 and 2 and actual possession of the suit property was taken by him. A receipt was issued by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants No. 1 and 2 completed all the formalities for getting the ownership of the disputed plot transferred in favour of the plaintiff and handed over the documents to defendant No. 3 to transfer the ownership in favour of plaintiff. When the defendants did not transfer the ownership of the disputed plot in favour of the plaintiff despite repeated requests, it necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit. 3. Upon notice, the defendants put in appearance. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement and admitted the claim of plaintiff. 4. Defendant No. 3 filed separate written statement by taking preliminary objections of locus standi, cause of action etc. 3. Upon notice, the defendants put in appearance. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement and admitted the claim of plaintiff. 4. Defendant No. 3 filed separate written statement by taking preliminary objections of locus standi, cause of action etc. On merits, it is averred that the disputed plot was given in auction to M/s. Nand Engineering Works whose proprietors have been shown as Nand Lal and Om Parkash. A request was made by allottees - defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 4 allegedly i.e. Om Parkash son of Bhajan Lal to enter their father's name in the allotment letter. Another application was also moved on 10.01.2008 alleging that the disputed plot had been sold to Anil Kumar son of Mool Raj and Harbhagwan son of Charan Dass. It was also deposed that they have no objection if suit property is transferred in favour of Anil Kumar son of Harbhagwan Dass. On 22.04.2008, defendant No. 1 tendered an affidavit before Municipal Council, Fatehabad declaring Om Parkash son of Bhajan Lal to be its business partner since 1986 and they had paid the total sale consideration along with interest to the answering defendant. 5. Defendant No. 4 Om Parkash also filed separate written statement by taking preliminary objections of locus standi, cause of action, maintainability etc. On merits, it is averred that M/s. Nand Engineering Works, Fatehabad is a partnership firm in which the answering defendant and Nand Lal are the partners. The suit property was purchased by answering defendant and Nand Lal and sale consideration was paid to Municipal Council, Fatehabad. The allotment letter was issued in favour of M/s. Nand Engineering Works (Nand Lal & Om Parkash, defendant No. 4). Defendants No. 1 and 4 filed a joint affidavit dated 22.02.2007 before Municipal Council, Fatehabad requesting to add the name of their father in the allotment letter. 6. In order to controvert the averments made in written statements, the plaintiff filed replication reiterating the averments made in plaint and denying the averments made in written statements. On pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed the following issues: 1. Whether on the grounds mentioned in the plaint, plaintiff is entitled for decree of prohibitory and mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether on the grounds mentioned in the plaint, plaintiff is entitled for decree of prohibitory and mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 7. Relief. 7. The parties were afforded opportunity to lead their respective evidence. After appreciating the evidence, both the courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 9. Both the courts below have recorded the finding that neither the plaintiff nor Nand Lal son of Banwari Lal has explained how the original allotment letter came in possession of defendant-Om Parkash son of Bhajan Lal, if he was not the allottee. Om Parkash son of Gopal Ram did not appear in witness-box to show that he was partner with Nand Lal and was original allottee. Defendant-Nand Lal failed to show how his signatures appeared on letter Ex. P6/Ex. D1, Ex. D5, Ex. D6 and Ex. D8 which are various affidavits and applications moved by Nand Lal son of Banwari Lal along with defendant No. 4-Om Parkash son of Bhajan Lal. It was the duty of Nand Lal son of Banwari Lal to explain how and in which manner he appended his signatures along with signatures of Om Parkash son of Bhajan Lal and got the same attested before Executive Magistrate, Fatehabad. Both the courts below have further observed that defendant No. 2-Om Parkash son of Gopal Ram has no concern with the suit property and the plaintiff failed to show his possession in the disputed plot as well his entitlement to a direction to Municipal Council, Fatehabad for the transfer of the suit property in his favour. It has been further rightly observed that agreement to sell Ex. It has been further rightly observed that agreement to sell Ex. P-1 does not create any right or interest in favour of the plaintiff and in the absence of ascertainment of the ownership/allottee of the disputed plot, no direction can be given to Municipal Council to transfer the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. 10. No other point has been urged. 11. The concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by both the Courts below. The said findings are not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence on record. Consequently, the said findings do not warrant interference in regular second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this second appeal. 12. Dismissed. No order as to costs. __