Nainar Sundaram, J.

1.Considering the limited scope of the controversy involved, the revisions themselves are taken up for final disposal today.

2. The petitioner has preferred cross-objections in regular appeals before the lower appellate Court. The cross-objection relate to the adverse finding of the trial court with reference to the adverse finding of the trial court with reference to the will marked Ex.B-43. The lower appellate Court had directed payment of court-fees on the cross-objections. Hence these revisions.

3. It is well settled proposition that with reference to an adverse finding against him, the respondent in an appeal by the opposite party, can take objections to such finding in order to support the decree. Such objections though they may take the formal character of eross-objections are not cross-objections to the decree as such. Order 41, Rule 22(1),, Civil Procedure Code hereinafter referred to as the Code, amply enables the respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, to support the decree by stating that the finding against him in the court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour. The relevant part of the rul