JUDGMENT 1. The appellants/defendants have filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2009 passed by the Court of I Additional District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in Civil Appeal No.9-A of 2009 affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2009 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Class I. Dabra District Gwalior in Civil Suit No.45-A of 2008 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendants has been decreed. In this appeal, the appellants are referred to as “defendants and the respondent as “plaintiff”. 2. The facts in brief of the case are that the land bearing Survey No.515 area 0.365 Hectare situated in village Billoua Tahsil Dabra which (hereinafter would be referred to as “disputed land”) was purchased by the plaintiff from one Jamuna Bai for consideration of Rs.80,600/- vide registered sale deed dated 23.7.2003 and obtained possession thereof. Abruptly on 14.7.2007, the defendants came to her field and threatened to dispossess her of the disputed land. Hence, she lodged a report to the police from where, she was advised to approach the civil Court for protection of her civil rights, hence, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for the relief stated above. 3. The defendants by filing the written statement denied the plaint averments stating that on the face of document dated 5.2.1994 executed by previous owner Jamuna Bai, the disputed land being coparcerners property, she had no right to sell the same. On the date of execution of sale deed, the age of said Jamuna Bai was stated to be 100 years having weakend memory and taking benefit of her old age and deteriorating mental condition, the alleged sale deed was got executed by the plaintiff in her favour which is not sustainable. Hence, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed being not maintainable. 4. After framing of the three issues, recording evidence of both the parties and having considered the recorded evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendants as stated above. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal before the first appellate Court which was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal has been filed as stated herein above. 6. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal before the first appellate Court which was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal has been filed as stated herein above. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the Courts have erred in believing the exclusive ownership of Jamuna Bai in the disputed land whereas, the land is ancestral property of the appellants/defendants and Jamuna Bai who did not have right to sell the land to the plaintiff. Besides it, Jamuna Bai had made a partition of the disputed land vide document dated 5.2.1994 Ex.D/1 among the defendants. 8. The arguments were considered. The defendants have not produced any document supporting their pleadings wherein, the disputed land has been recorded as ancestral one. On the contrary, in Khasra entries, the name of Jamuna Bai has been recorded as Bhumiswami owing to which, she had a right to sell the disputed land. The alleged partition deed dated 5.2.1994 Ex.D/1 is not a registered document. On perusal of the contents of Ex.D/1, it is evident that the immovable property has been partitioned among the defendants. Since, it is document of partition of immovable property, it ought to have been registered under section 17 of the Registration Act in the absence of which, the said document cannot be admitted in evidence. Besides it, the defendants cannot claim creation of any title in their favour on the basis of said documents. Both the Courts below have not committed any error in disbelieving the alleged document Ex.D/1 dated 5.2.1994 as it had never been acted upon after its execution and before the execution of sale deed dated 23.7.2004 by Jamuna Bai in favour of the plaintiff. The findings of both the learned Courts below are concurrent. No infirmity has been found in the appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises here for admission of this appeal. 9. Thus, the appeal being merit less and devoid of substance, is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to the costs. Let the decree be drawn up accordingly.