An appeal lies only against the decree and not against any finding recorded by the court at the instance of the party who has succeeded in the suit.

1. This second appeal raises an important substantial question of law as to whether an appeal would lie against a mere finding at the instance of the party who had succeeded in the suit or not?

2. The facts of the case would be as follows:- The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.113 of 1990 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from in any manner interfering with her alleged enjoyment and possession of the suit property comprised in S.No.2413/1 measuring 950 square feet out of the total extent of 2300 square feet at Mannargudi. The claim for title was made by the plaintiff on the basis of the settlement deed dated 27.05.1986 said to have been executed by her father. It was the case of the plaintiff that her father – Thirugnanam Pillai was the original owner of the suit property and after his demise on account of the said settlement deed , she has become absolute owner and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it was contended that Thirugnanam Pillai had no title and the alleged settlement deed dated 27.05.1986 is void in law and the same has not conveyed either title or possession in favour of the plaintiff. It was further contended that the defendant was all along in possession of the property as its absolute owner and so the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings the trial court framed as many as 6 issues as under:-

1. Whether the settlement deed dated 27.05.1986 is true and valid?

2. Whether the suit property originally belonged to the defendant and his father and whether it is true that his father has released the suit property absolutely in favour of the defendant?

3. Whether the aforesaid release deed dated 30.12.1971 is valid and on account of the same whether the defendant has become absolute owner of the same?

4. Whether the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession?

5. Whether the suit property is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff as claimed by him?

6. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for?

5. In respect of the above issues, both sides let in both oral as well as documentary evidences. Having considered the same, the trial court found the issues No.1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff holding that the settlement deed dated 27.05.1986 is valid and that the suit property was not at all owned by the defendant and his father. The trial court, however, found under issue No.5 that the possession of the suit property was not in the hands of the plaintiff and instead it was only in the hands of the defendant. Thus, the issue No.5 was answered in favour of the defendant. Under Issue No.4, the trial court held that the defendant had not perfected his title by adverse possession. Accordingly, the issue No.4 was answered against the defendant. The issue No.6 was however decided in favour of the defendant. Thus, ultimately the suit was dismissed. As against the findings under issue Nos.1 to 4 and 6, the defendant, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal in A.S.No.39 of 1996 before the learned Principal Sub Judge, Nagapattinam. The plaintiff did not prefer any appeal against the decree and judgment of the trial court. The learned Principal Sub Judge by judgment and decree dated 22.01.1997 allowed the appeal and set aside the findings of the trial court in respect of issue Nos.1 to 4 and 6. It is against the same, the plaintiff has come up with this second appeal.

6. While admitting this second appeal, this court framed the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the lower appellate court is right in dismissing the suit and in vacating the findings rendered in issue Nos.1 to 4 and 6 especially when the fact of the case necessitates the court to decide on the issue of title?

2. Whether the order of the lower appellate court is right in entertaining the appeal in the absence of any decree operating against the defenda