Grounds for maintaining the appeal available.

1. The sixth defendant is the appellant in the second appeal. The appeal has been filed challenging the finding of the lower appellate court which had remanded the matter. A preliminary point regarding the maintainability of the second appeal arises for consideration.

2. The learned counsel Mr.T.R. Rajaraman relies on the following decisions in support of his contention that the second appeal is maintainable against a finding. Jagadish Chandra Bose v. V. Baijnath Shaw, AIR 1966 Cal. 580 and Devaki Amma and others v. K.P. Sreedharan, AIR 1993 Ker. 348.

The finding challenged by the sixth defendant-appellant is that the sale deeds Exs.B2 to B4 filed in O.S. No.569 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai are void. The learned Subordinate Judge Kuzhithurai in A.S. No.172 of 1982 remanded the matter for affording on opportunity to the plaintiff in the suit to implead the children of the second defendant. The contention of the learned counsel is that the remand is for a particular purpose viz. for impleading the children of the second defendant but the finding against the appellant regarding the sale deeds will be there and the trial court cannot go behind the finding. According to the learned counsel, strictly there is no decree against him, but the finding will definitely operate as res judicata.

3. In Ohene Moore v. Akesseh Tayee, AIR 1935 PC 5 which case went from West Africa, the Privy Council held it is to be remembered that all appeals in this country and elsewhere exist merely by statute and unless the statutory conditions are fulfilled, no jurisdiction is given to any court of justice to entertain them. It is quite true that their Lordships, like any other court, are bound by the statute law and if the statute law says there shall be no jurisdiction in a certain event and that event has occurred then it is impossible for their Lordships or for any other court to have jurisdiction."

4. In Rangoon Botatoung Co. Ltd., v. The Collector, Rangoon, ILR 40 Cal. 21 which went to the Privy Council from lower Burma it was held, following Sandback Charity Trustees v. North Staffodshired Railway Co., 1877 LR 3 QBD.I that "an appeal does not exist in the nature of things. A right of appeal from any decision of any tribunal must be given by express enactment", and that appeal was a creature of statute.

5. In Gulabachand Ramchand Jain v. Noorbeg Umarbeg Mirza, AIR 1980 Bom. 307, it has been held that an appeal or cross objection lies against a decree and not against a findings.

6. In Devaram and another v. Ishwar Chand and another, 1995 (6) SCC 733 the Supreme Court held as follows:

"It is provided in Section 96 of the CPC that an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction from the decision of such court. So also, Section 100 provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal. Thus sine qua non in both the provisions is the decree and unless the decree is passed, an appeal would not lie under Section 96 nor would it lie under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Similarly, an appeal lies against an order under Section 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code where the orders against which appeal would lie have been enumerated. Unless there is an order as defined in Section 2 (14) and unless that order falls within the list of orders indicated in Order 43, an appeal would not lie.

"27. Thus, an appeal does not lie against mere findings recorded by a court unless the findings amount to a decree or order. Where a suit is dismissed, the defendant against whom an adverse finding might have come to be recorded on some issues has no right of appeal and he cannot question those findings before the appellate court. See Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, 1974 (2) SCC 393 : 1974 (3) SCR 882".

"28. In Midnapur Zamindari Co. Ltd., v. Naresh Narayan Roy, AIR 1922 PC 241 : 48 IA 49, 55 it was observed as under:

"Their