Chitambaresh, J.

1. The Registry has noted a defect to the effect that a single memorandum of Regular First Appeal would not suffice against a decree dismissing the suit and decreeing the counter claim. The Registry opined that two separate memorandum of Regular First Appeal need to be filed against the decree in view of Girija v. Rajan [2015 (1) KLT 695]. We however directed the Registry to number the Regular First Appeal with a rider that its maintainability would be decided during hearing at the time of admission.

2. We accordingly heard Mr. T. Krishnan Unni, Senior Advocate on behalf of the Appellant, Mr. M.P. Ashok Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the first respondent and Mr. P.K. Mohanan, Advocate on behalf of the second respondent as also Mr. P. Viswanathan, Advocate as amicus curiae at the time of admission.

3. The suit is one for a decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell and for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the plaint schedule property. The counter claim filed by the first defendant is one for a decree to recover possession of the plaint schedule property from the plaintiff on the strength of title. The suit in O.S.No.318/2010 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Sulthanbathery was dismissed and the counter claim decreed. The plaintiff has filed a single memorandum of Regular First Appeal against the composite decree however showing the valuation and the payment of court fee separately.

4. A quick reference to Rule 6A of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['the CPC' for short] which speaks of counter claim by defendant is profitable and the same is as follows:-

“6-A. Counter-claim by defendant:- (1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not:

Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.

(2) Such counter-claim have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim.

(3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court.

(4) The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints.” (emphasis supplied)

Thus the counter claim shall have the same 'effect' as a cross suit and shall be 'treated' as a plaint under Sub-rules (2) and (4) of Rule 6-A of Order VIII of the CPC only by a legal fiction. A separate cross suit or a plaint need not be filed and it would suffice if the defendant raises a counter claim in the written statement and pay court fee thereon.

5. Let us see the decree passed when a counter claim raised by the defendant is allowed as is discernible from Rule 19(1) of Order XX of the CPC which is extracted hereunder:-

“19. Decree when set-off or counterclaim is allowed:- (1) Where the defendant has been allowed a set-off or counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, the decree shall state what amount is due to the plaintiff and what amount is due to the defendant, and shall be for the recovery of any sum which appears to be due to either party.”

The homogeneity is evident in that the composite decree shall state what amount is due to the plaintiff and the defendant and shall be for the recovery of any sum which appears to be due. Only one appeal is envisaged against 'every' decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear appeals. This is wel