RAMESH Vs. DECEASED SAJJAN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 100 of the CPC has been preferred by legal representatives of deceased defendant No.2 Mahila Sajjanbai against the judgment and decree dtd. 26/8/2022 passed in RCA No.2400018/2015 by the IInd District Judge, District - Ratlam arising out of the judgment and decree dtd. 10/2/2011 passed in Civil Suit No.147-A/2008 by the IVth Civil Judge, Class-I, District Ratlam.

(2.) The plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 4 instituted an action against the defendants for declaration of their title to the suit lands and for possession.

(3.) The appellants have challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree dismissing their appeal and affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court against them. However, it is observed that though findings had been recorded by the trial Court in favour of plaintiffs and against defendant No.2 on merits but the claim was ultimately dismissed by it. There was hence no decree against defendant No.2. She or her legal representatives had no right to prefer an appeal under Sec. 96 of the C.P.C. against the said decree as it is well settled that an appeal can be preferred only against a decree and not against any adverse finding recorded by the Court below. Since the ultimate decree was in favour of defendant No.2, no appeal could have been preferred by her legal representatives, the appellants. The appeal preferred by them before the lower appellate Court was hence itself not maintainable and ought to have been dismissed as such by it which has however illegally proceeded to dismiss the same on merits. The judgment passed by the lower appellate Court is hence wholly without jurisdiction.