A party who is adversely affected by the decree can alone appeal against it.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff filed O. S. No. 13 of 1908 originally against four defendants for declaration of his title to the suit land and for recovery of possession thereof. The suit land is situated in the City of Hyderabad and is 19 acres in extent. The plaintiff alleged that he was the Inamdar of this land and that in fact the suit land was a part of a big Inam which he owned. He further alleged that in 1353 F. (1944 A. D.) he was wrongfully dispossessed by the Government of the suit land. The State of Andhra Pradesh is the first defendant. The second defendant claims to be the rival Inamdar in respect of the suit land. Defendants 3 and 4 are the grantees of a part of land from defendant No. 2. Defendants 5 to 8 are also grantees. Amongst defendants 9 to 77 there are some defendants who claim a share in the suit land with defendant No. 2 and others are purchasers. The plaintiff originally joined to the suit defendants 1 to 4. Defendants 5 to 77 were joined to the suit later at the instance of the plaintiff.

( 2 ) FIRST defendant (State of Andhra Pradesh) filed written statement and denied the plaintiffs claim. They claimed that the suit land belonged to the State. They denied the Inam claimed by the plaintiff. They also pleaded that the suit was barred by time. Defendant 2 filed his written statement in which he set up his own title to the suit land. He claimed that he was the Inamdar of the suit land and not the plaintiff. He specifically pleaded that the suit land was a part of Inam Maqta Hazrat Naimatullah Shah and that he got the suit land by virtue of the decree passed by the Revenue Court in 1327 F. (1918 A. D.) He also pleaded that the suit was barred by time and alleged that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land. The other defendants filed their written statements and supported the 2nd defendant.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge raised as many as 11 issues and held that the plaintiff has not proved his claim. While recording the finding against the plaintiff, he also recorded the finding that the defendants other than defendant 1 have not proved their title. He therefore dismissed the plaintiffs suit in its entirety.

( 4 ) IT is this decree of dismissal which is challenged by the 4th defendant in C. C. C. A. No. 85 of 1976 and by the second defendant in C. C. C. A. No. 116 of 1976.

( 5 ) THE preliminary contention which has been raised by the learned Advocate-General who appears on behalf of the first defendant is that these appeals are not maintainable. His contention is that the entire decree passed by the Court below is in favour of the defendants and that therefore they could not have appealed against that decree. In reply it has been contended on behalf of the appealing defendants that inasmuch as the trial Court has recorded its finding against the appealing defendants that they have not proved their title to the suit land, they are entitled to challenge that finding in these appeals. The question which therefore arises for our consideration is whether these three appeals directed against a finding only are maintainable when the entire decree is in favour of the appealing defendants. It may be stated at this stage that the plaintiff who lost his suit and against whom the learned trial Judge passed the decree has not filed any appeal against it.

( 6 ) IT is well settled that a party who is adversely affected by the decree can alone appeal against it. In a case where a finding has been recorded against the defendant but the suit has been dismissed, he may challenge that finding if it is res judicata and is binding upon him in future. In other words if the decree against the plaintiff could not have been passed without deciding an issue against the defendant, the defendant could probably have challenged that finding in an appeal. However, if the plaintiff suit can be dismissed without recording any finding against the defendant and yet if a finding has been recorded against the defendant t