JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for appellants. 2. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of disputed property wherein defendants pleaded that they have purchased the disputed property through agreement dated 11th September, 1997. Trial Court framed four issues. Both the parties led their evidence. Trial Court decided issue Nos.1 to 3 in favour of plaintiff, but decided issue No.4 against defendants. However, in view of findings of issue Nos.1 to 3 dismissed plaintiff's suit. Since finding on issue No.4 was decided against defendants, therefore, defendants preferred first appeal, but first appellate court dismissed the same vide its judgment and decree dated 1st May, 2010. Being aggrieved with the same, the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants - defendants. 3. Submission of learned counsel for appellant is that Trial Court dismissed plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, therefore, there was no occasion for deciding issue No.4 against defendants, the agreement was admissible in evidence, therefore, finding of issue No.4 is liable to be set aside. 4. I have considered his submissions in the light of reasonings assigned by both the courts below while deciding issue No.4 against defendants-appellants. Trial Court has observed that admittedly, agreement was not registered, whereas possession of disputed property is alleged to have been given through this agreement, therefore, its registration was required compulsorily. Trial Court also observed that it was not on proper stamp. In these circumstances, it was not found to be admissible in evidence. The finding of trial court in this regard has been affirmed by the first appellate court. 5. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said findings so as to interfere with the same. 6. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal the same is, accordingly dismissed in limine.Appeal Dismissed. *******