Devadoss, J.

1. In this appeal, the question is whether the appeal to the Court below was competent or not. The 2nd defendant was the appellant before the lower Appellate Court. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, alleging that he was the adopted son of Ramaswamy, The 1st defendant is Ramaswamys widow and the 2nd defendant her brothers daughter. The 1st defendant set up a gift in favour of the 2nd defendant, The District Munsiff found against the alleged adoption and found in favour of the alleged gift, but held that the gift was not valid, The 2nd defendant appealed against that finding of the District Munsiff and the Subordinate Judge held that the gift was valid. The plaintiff prefers this second Appeal and contends that the 2nd defendant was not competent to prefer an appeal against a decree, which was in her favour inasmuch as the District Munsiff had dismissed the plaintifis suit with costs.

2. This point is covered by very clear authorities, so far as this Court is concerned and there is no reason to depart from them. In Secretary of State v. Saminathe Goundan (1911) 37 Mad. 25, it was held that a party, in whose favour a decree was passed, could not appeal against