An appeal is maintainable only against a decree, not against a judgment or a mere finding. A party who succeeds in obtaining the relief sought, such as the dismissal of a suit, is not an aggrieved person entitled to file an appeal to contest specific adverse findings.

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/Defendant Nos.1 and 2 challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 14.12.1999, in O.S.No.13 of 1991 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, [for short ‘the trial Court’].

2. The appellants herein are the defendant Nos.1 and 2, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein are the defendant Nos.3 to 7 and the respondent No.6 herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.13 of 1991, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.1 died and the appellant No.2 was added as legal representative of the deceased appellant No.1. The respondent No.3 died during the pendency of the appeal and the respondent Nos.7 to 9 were added as legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.3. The respondent No.2 also died during the pendency of the appeal and the respondent No.10 was added as legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.2.

3. Originally, the respondent No.6/plaintiff herein filed the suit in O.S.No.13 of 1991 against defendant Nos.1 to 7, seeking for partition of plaint schedule property and for allotment of plaint 'A' and ‘B’ schedule properties into 40 equal shares with reference to good and bad qualities and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and other share to the defendants that is 5/40th share to the defendant No.1, 9/40th share to the defendant No.3 and 20/40th share to other defendant Nos.4 to 7 and for future profits and costs of suit.

4. Both parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The case of the respondent No.6/plaintiff as per the plaint averments in O.S.No.13 of 1997, in brief, is as follows:

The plaintiff is the daughter and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons and the defendant No.3 is the wife of late Mamillaplli Raghava Acharyulu. The defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the daughters and the defendant Nos.6 and 7 are the sons of late Mallimpally Sobhanadra Acharyulu and the other brother M.V.G. Krishnama Acharyulu died issueless, and his wife also died subsequently. The plaintiff further pleaded that as per the terms of the compromise decree, the plaintiff’s father and the father of the defendant Nos.4 to 7 and M.V.G. Krishnama Acharyulu got 3/5 share and their mother and the appellant in the present appeal by name Mangamma was given 1/5th share, and the plaintiffs therein and his sister and mother representing Manavallaswamy branch were given 1/5th share in the plaint schedule properties in O.S.No.48 of 1952, on the file of the Sub-Court, Eluru. The plaintiff further pleaded that in pursuance of the compromise decree, a final decree petition was filed for partition vide I.A.No.725 of 1962 for partition and for separate possession by the plaintiff in the said suit by name M. Rangachary.

The plaintiff further pleaded that his paternal grandmother Mangamma executed a Will for her 1/5th share in the plaint schedule properties to her three sons, Shobhanadra Acharyulu, the father of the defendant Nos.4 to 7, M.V.G. Krishnama Acharyulu, who subsequently died issueless, and to the father of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and also to the husband of the defendant No.3 by name late Raghava Acharyulu and subsequently, the defendant No.3 also died during the pendency of the final decree petition for partition vide I.A.No.725 of 1962. The plaintiff further pleaded that he had two more