A party in whose favor a decree has been passed cannot appeal against the decree merely because a finding on one of the issues is against him, unless the finding is necessary for the decision of the suit and has a nexus with the grounds on which the decree is passed.

( 1 ) THIS is a peculiar appeal preferred by defendant No. 3 against defendant no. 5. None of the plaintiffs or the other defendants have been made party to this appeal. In the circumstances, the maintainability of such appeal is the primary question which has been argued before us by the learned Counsel on both the sides.

( 2 ) O. S. No. 347 of 1980, in the Court of the learned Principal Subordinate judge, Guntur, was initiated by Smt. K. Susheela and her two daughters named jayasree and Vasundhara. The suit was instituted for obtaining a declaration that the said plaintiffs were entitled to the suit schedule properties according to their shares. The total share claimed by the plaintiffs was 6/8th. Consequently relief of partition and possession of the said property, according to their share, along with future mesne profits was also claimed. One K. Jaya Ramayya was the owner of certain ancestral properties out of the suit schedule properties. The said Ramayya died some time before 1987. He left behind his widow k. Laxmi Narsamma alias Maggamma and his son named K. Ganeswara Rao. Dr. K. Ganeswara Rao died on 4-1-1964. Thus he predeceased his mothee narsamma alias Maggamma. The said Maggamma died on 30-7-1973. Plaintiff no. 1 K. Susheela filed the suit in 1980. Her daughters were the other coplaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 Susheela claimed that she was married to Dr. K. Ganeswara Rao and the said marriage was celebrated on 16-5-1943 at madras. Defendant No. 1 in the suit K. Subbaramma was the first wife of said dr. K. Ganeswara Rao. However, she had no issue and that is why Sri ganeswara Rao entered into second marriage with first plaintiff. Defendants2 and 3 were the sisters of deceased Ganeswara Rao. Defendants 4 and 6 are two sanghams. Defendant No. 5 is the daughter of sister of defendant No. 1 k. Subbaramamma. It may be pointed out that defendant No. 5 was brought on record, on20-7-1987during the pendency of the suitas defendant No. 1 expired. Defendant No. 5 has been brought on record as legal representative on the strength of a will which was allegedly executed by defendant No. 1 before her death.

( 3 ) AS pointed out already K. Ganeswara Rao pre-deceased his mother narsamma alias Maggamma and all property of the family whether ancestral or acquired by K. Ganeswara Rao was in possession of Narsamma till her death. The plaintiffs contended in the suit that as plaintiff No. 1 was widow of k. Ganeswara Rao, she along with defendant No. 1 was entitled to joint 1/4th share. Thus each of them were entitled to 1/8th share. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 being daughters of K. Ganeswara Rao were entitled to 1/4th share each and defendants 2 and 3 being daughters of deceased Narsamma alias Maggamma, were also entitled to 1/8th share each, as Maggamma was entitled to 1/4th share in the said property. Defendants 2 and 3 could get the share of Maggamma only. Defendants 2 and 3 had apparently created some Trust making Endowment in the name of the fourth defendantand some of the items of the schedule property were transferred to the said Trust.

( 4 ) THE Defendants 2 and 3 filed a counter which was adopted by defendant no. 1. The main stand taken in the counter was that plaintiff No. 1 was not a legally wedded wife of Dr. Ganeswara Rao and therefore, plaintiffs 2 and 3 were not the legitimate children of Dr. Ganeswara Rao. The deceased Narasamma and defendant No. 1 were the only heirs to the property left behind by dr. Ganeswara Rao. After death of Narasamma alias Maggamma her share went to defendants 2 and 3 and they had created a Trust which was valid. Plea of limitation and adverse possession was also taken as alternate plea. It was contended that even if plaintiff No. 1 was a legally wedded wife she was not entitled to the share claimed because all the property was an ancestral property and the devolution of shares would be different.

( 5 ) AS pointed out earlier defendant No. 5 was brought on record after the death of defendant