JUDGMENT : N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, J. 1. The defendant is in second appeal. 2. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration of their title and for possession of the suit property. It was their case that they had purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 13.8.1992 and they had thereafter raised a loan and constructed a house. It was stated that the defendant, who had no manner of right, title or interest, had trespassed on to the suit schedule property and illegally occupied the same and that they were therefore entitled to recover possession from him. 3. The said suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the plaintiffs were no doubt the owners and had constructed the house, but plaintiff No. 2 had executed an agreement of sale on 29.12.2001, whereby he had agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- and had received a sum of Rs. 45,000/- as part of the sale consideration. It was stated that the time fixed for registration was 31.3.2002 and in view of the sale agreement, the defendant was entitled to reside in the house, which he had sought to purchase. 4. The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that plaintiff No. 2 had not executed any agreement of sale in favour of the defendant and the defendant having admitted the title of the plaintiffs, could not resist delivering the possession to the plaintiffs. 5. The defendant carried the matter in appeal. 6. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, concurred with the finding of the Trial Court that no agreement of sale had been executed in favour of the defendant and the defendant was bound to hand over possession. 7. It is this concurrent finding, which is challenged in this second appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that despite the fact that the defendant had raised a contention that an agreement of sale had been executed, no criminal case had been filed against him and therefore it will have to be held that the agreement of sale stood proved. 9. It is the admitted case of the defendant that the suit property did belong to the plaintiffs and they had constructed a house. 9. It is the admitted case of the defendant that the suit property did belong to the plaintiffs and they had constructed a house. The only defence put forth was that the defendant was in possession under the agreement of sale stated to have been executed by the plaintiffs. 10. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have concurred that no agreement of sale had been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant. Thus, the essential question of fact as to whether agreement of sale had been executed, has been held against the defendant. 11. In my view, there is no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arising for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.