ORDER accordingly, respondents/plaintiffs were declared owners of 1/4th part of the disputed property whereas appellants were declared owners of 3/4th part of the property in dispute.

7. Against the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, it appears that only appellants preferred an appeal which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 5A/2010, and by impugned judgment and decree dated 09/03/2010 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior, appeal filed by appellants has been dismissed.

8. Before considering the facts of the case, this Court would like to consider as to whether a decree passed in a counterclaim is a separate judgment and decree requiring filing of separate appeal or not? This Court in the case of Baboolal vs. Kishanlal and Others decided on 18/06/2025 in Second Appeal No. 401/2006 (Gwalior Bench) has held as under: "10. The first question for consideration is as to whether a single appeal against common judgment and decree by which suit was dismissed and the counter-claim was allowed is maintainable or not?

11. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajni Rani And Another Vs.

Khairati Lal And Others reported in (2015) 2 SCC 682 has held as under:

"12. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is manifest that when there is a conclusive determination of rights of parties upon adjudication, the said decision in certain circumstances can have the status of a decree. In the instant case, as has been narrated earlier, the counterclaim has been adjudicated and decided on merits holding that it is barred by principle of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The claim of the defendants has been negatived. In Jag Mohan Chawla v. Dera Radha Swami Satsang [(1996) 4 SCC 699] dealing with the concept of counterclaim, the Court has opined thus : (SCC p. 703, para 5)

“5. … is treated as a cross-suit with all the indicia of pleadings as a plaint including the duty to aver his cause of action and also payment of the requisite court fee thereon. Instead of relegating the defendant to an independent suit, to avert multiplicity of the proceeding and needless protection (sic protraction), the legislature intended to try both the suit and the counterclaim in the same suit as suit and cross-suit and have them disposed of in the same trial. In other words, a defendant can claim any right by way of a counterclaim in respect of any cause of action that has accrued to him even though it is independent of the cause of action averred by the plaintiff and have the same cause of action adjudicated without relegating the defendant to file a separate suit.”

17. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. However, as we are annulling the order on the ground that revision was not maintainable, liberty is granted to the respondents to prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum as required under law. We may hasten to add that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. There shall be no order as to costs."

12. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Sh. Prakash Chand, deceased through his LRs. Vs. Anjani and others decided on 20.09.2022 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.92/2020 has held as under:

"6. Record demonstrates that against the dismissal of the suit and the decree of the CounterClaim, plaintiffs preferred only one single appeal, i.e. Civil Appeal No.14J of 2016, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District JudgeII, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., vide judgment and decree dated 04.12.2019, by holding as under:

“19. In Parso versus Dumnu Ram and others 2017(3) Shim. Law Cases 1270, while deciding the substantial question of law, “whether one single appeal filed by plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Chamba, in Civil Suit No.38 of 2021 was maintainable in view of the fact that vide its judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005, learned trial Court while dismissing