JUDGMENT : Rohit Arya, J. 1. These two appeals viz. SA No. 1593/2005 and 1654/2005 arise out of the common judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court dated 30/8/2005 dismissing the civil appeals No. 14-A/2005 and 31-A/2005 and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 29/4/2005 dismissing the civil suit No. 7A/2004 (Dilip Singh v. Leeladhar Agrawal and another) and decreeing the civil suit No. 3-A/2004 (Leeladhar Agrawal v. Dilip Singh) by the even dated judgment and decree and, therefore, the both are being decided by this common order. 2. The suit property is the house No. 249 situated in Darugaran Mohalla Ganesh Gali, Purani Shivpuri. 3. In civil suit No. 7A/2004 plaintiff/appellant-Dilip Singh sought declaration that sale deed dated 16/6/1970 allegedly executed by him in favour of defendant-Leeladhar Agrawal be declared as null and void treating to be a mortgage deed with further relief of permanent injunction against the defendant/respondent not to interfere with his possession in the suit property. 4. In civil suit No. 3A/2004 plaintiff/respondent-Leeladhar Agrawal had sought the relief of eviction and arrears of rent against the appellant-Dilip Singh inter alia contending that Dilip Singh though was inducted as tenant, but he has stopped payment of rent since 1997 and the suit property was required for his bona fide need, therefore, sought relief of eviction on the ground of bona fide need and arrears of rent. 5. The trial court dismissed civil suit No. 7A/2004 inter alia holding that plaintiff/appellant-Dilip Singh failed to prove that sale deed dated 16/6/1970 was the mortgage deed and held that by the aforesaid sale deed the suit property was transferred in favour of defendant/respondent-Leeladhar Agrawal and he acquired title thereto. 6. The trial court decreed civil suit No. 3A/2004 ordering eviction of defendant/appellant-Dilip Singh with further decree of payment of arrears of rent. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments and decrees passed by the trial court dated 29/4/2005, two appeals, as referred above, were filed before the first appellate court. The first appellate court has reconsidered the submissions advanced by the plaintiff/appellant-Dilip Singh to the effect that document dated 16/6/1970 was a mortgage deed and not a sale deed. Plaintiff/appellant-Dilip Singh averred that the suit house was purchased by him in the year 1965. As he required Rs. The first appellate court has reconsidered the submissions advanced by the plaintiff/appellant-Dilip Singh to the effect that document dated 16/6/1970 was a mortgage deed and not a sale deed. Plaintiff/appellant-Dilip Singh averred that the suit house was purchased by him in the year 1965. As he required Rs. 2,000/- as loan to meet the marriage expenses of his daughter in the year 1979-70, the suit property was mortgaged with defendant/respondent-Leeladhar on condition of repayment of loan with agreed interest rate. It is further averred that the entire loan amount with interest of Rs. 15,000/- was repaid in front of witnesses, however, defendant/respondent-Leeladhar Agrawal denied to return the documents in August, 1999, thereafter, on enquiry from the office of Deputy Registrar, plaintiff/appellant-Dilip Singh was given to understand that the registered document was not a mortgage deed, but was a sale deed, whereas the plaintiff/appellant had not executed the sale deed. 8. On the other hand, defendant/respondent-Leeladhar averred that the sale deed was executed on 16/6/1970 on consideration of Rs. 2,000/-. The consideration was paid. Thereafter, rent deed was executed between the defendant/respondent-Leeladhar Agrawal and plaintiff/appellant-Dilip Singh on agreed monthly rent of Rs. 30/- and the house was given on rent to Dilip Singh. He has been paying rent regularly, however, since 1997 he stopped payment of rent, therefore, notice was issued to him and as the suit house was required for the bona fide need of defendant/respondent-Leeladhar Agrawal, therefore, civil suit No. 3-A/2004 was filed for eviction. With the aforesaid averments, suit was sought to be dismissed. 9. In civil suit No. 3A/2004 plaintiff/respondent-Leeladhar Agrawal had claimed eviction on the ground of bona fide need and arrears of rent from April, 1997 up-till date inter alia contending that the suit property is of his ownership and possession by virtue of sale deed dated 16/6/1970 and defendant/appellant-Dilip Singh was the tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. The same was denied by Dilip Singh contending that he is the owner of the aforesaid suit house and aforesaid document is a mortgage deed and not a sale deed and thereby no title has been transferred in favour of Leeladhar Agrawal. With the aforesaid pleadings suit was prayed to be dismissed. 10. The first appellate court has found that plaintiff/appellant-Dilip Singh though has averred that the aforesaid sale deed was a mortgage against the loan amount of Rs. 2,000/- and an amount of Rs. With the aforesaid pleadings suit was prayed to be dismissed. 10. The first appellate court has found that plaintiff/appellant-Dilip Singh though has averred that the aforesaid sale deed was a mortgage against the loan amount of Rs. 2,000/- and an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was repaid in presence of witnesses, however, plaintiff/appellant-Dilip Singh failed to bring on record any receipt or acknowledgment of repayment of aforesaid debt and, therefore, in absence thereof, it was not found established that the sale deed was meant to be a mortgage deed and there was a loan transaction between the parties. Consequently, the suit property was held to be of the ownership and possession of defendant/respondent-Leeladhar Agrawal. The first appellate court has also reconsidered the evidence on record and found that plaintiff/appellant-Dilip Singh was a tenant in the suit premises and concurring with the findings of the trial court as regards bona fide need and arrears of rent decreed the suit in favour of Leeladhar Agrawal. 11. Having gone through the findings of facts recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court, in the opinion of this Court, both the courts below have critically examined the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. The trial court was justified having dismissed civil suit No. 7A/2004 filed by Dilip Singh and having decreed civil suit No. 3A/2004 filed by Leeladhar Agrawal. There was no illegality in confirming the aforesaid judgment and decree by the first appellate court. The entire gamut of the matter is in the realm of facts. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal warranting interference under Section 100 CPC. The judgment in Gulab Chand (dead) by Lrs. v. Babulal (dead) by Lrs. and others, 1998 (1) JLJ 1 , cited by the counsel for appellant, is distinguishable on facts and is of no assistance to the appellant inasmuch as there is no dispute between the parties that in form and substance the document dated 16/6/1970 is a sale deed and has no semblance with the requirement of mortgage deed. This facts is beyond any cavil of doubt. The plaintiff/appellant-Dilip Singh has come with positive assertion that he has taken loan of Rs. 2,000/- in the year 1969-70 and repaid the entire amount of Rs. This facts is beyond any cavil of doubt. The plaintiff/appellant-Dilip Singh has come with positive assertion that he has taken loan of Rs. 2,000/- in the year 1969-70 and repaid the entire amount of Rs. 15,000/- with interest in the year 1997, but the same in fact is not supported by any documentary evidence viz. receipt etc., therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the trial court was justified having not accepted the story implanted by plaintiff/appellant-Dilip Singh. 12. Accordingly, the second appeals sans merit and are hereby dismissed.