Hon'ble VYAS, J.—This is second appeal under Section 100, C.P.C. filed by the defendants against judgment and decree dated 22.11.2008 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Parbatsar in Civil Appeal No.13/2006, by which, judgment and decree dated 20.05.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Makrana in Civil Suit No.07/91 (04/2004) was affirmed. 2. According to facts of the case, plaintiff-respondent filed suit for permanent injunction and partition before the trial Court. The trial Court after instituting the suit issued notice to the defendant-appellants and; thereafter, reply was filed by the defendant. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court : ^^01- vk;k oknxzLr Hkwfe ekdZ th-,p-vkbZ-,Q- of.kZr ifjf'k"V ^^v** esa oknhx.k dk vk/kk fgLlk gS ,oa oknhx.k oknxzLr Hkwfe dk caVokjk djkus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ¼oknhx.k½ 02- vk;k izfroknh] oknxzLr Hkwfe ij oknhx.k ds vkf/kiR; esa gLr{ksi dj jgk gS ftlds fy;s oknhx.k LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh fMØh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ¼oknhx.k½ 03- vuqrks"kA** 3. At the trial for adjudication upon the afore-quoted issues, from the side of the plaintiffs three witnesses viz., P.W.-1 Chhotu, P.W.-2 Hazi Mohammed Ali and P.W.-3 Mohammed Harun were examined and documents Appendix-A appended to the plaint, Ex.-1, original sale-deed of the land, Ex.-2, certified copy of patta of the land, Ex.-3 and judgment and order of that Court in criminal proceedings were exhibited. From the side of the defendants, defendant Khalil Ahemd, D.W.-1, Mukhtiyar, D.W.-2 and Mohammed Harun, D.W.-3 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced by the defendants. 4. After recording the evidence, the trail Court gave its finding with regard to issue No.1 that the plaintiff is entitled for decree of partition and is entitled for his half share of the property. The second issue with regard to permanent injunction was decided in favour of the appellant-defendants. The issue with regard to relief was decided by the trial Court, in which it was ordered that both plaintiffs and defendants are entitled for half share each in the property. 5. The finding with regard to issue No.1 was challenged by way of filing appeal before the learned District Judge and the same was transferred to the Court of Addl. District Judge, Parbatsar where the appeal was decided by the learned lower appellate Court while upholding the finding arrived at by the trial Court. 5. The finding with regard to issue No.1 was challenged by way of filing appeal before the learned District Judge and the same was transferred to the Court of Addl. District Judge, Parbatsar where the appeal was decided by the learned lower appellate Court while upholding the finding arrived at by the trial Court. In this second appeal, the defendant-appellants are challenging the validity of judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that both the Courts below have committed error while ignoring the documentary as well as oral evidence. Further, it is argued that both the Courts below completely ignored the important aspect of the matter that admittedly both the parties are enjoying the property in question, therefore, by the conduct of the parties, it was to be assumed that partition had already taken place in the year 1953. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that very important aspect of the matter was lost sight of by both the Courts below that both the parties are satisfied with their own share and the suit was filed in the year 1991 which itself shows that after a period of 60 years of the partition by way of conduct of the parties the suit was filed. 7. I have considered the submission made b learned counsel for the appellants. 8. In my opinion, admittedly, no documentary or oral evidence was produced before the Court with regard to alleged partition by conduct. So also, that a wall was constructed in between both the portions cannot be termed as partition by conduct. Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence and thus rightly decided the issue with regard to partition of the property. In my opinion, therefore, no substantial question of law emerges for consideration in this second appeal. There is thus no force in this appeal. 9. This second appeal is hereby dismissed.