LAW FOR ALL

“Sections 96 and 100 CPC make provision for an appeal being preferred from every original decree or from every decree passed in appeal respectively; none of the provisions enumerates the person who can file an appeal. However, it is settled by a long catena of decisions that to be entitled to file an appeal the person must be one aggrieved by the decree. Unless a person is prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree he is not entitled to file an appeal. See Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal[7], Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. (supra) and Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar (supra).) No appeal lies against a mere finding. It is significant to note that both Sections 96 and 100 CPC provide for an appeal against decree and not against judgment.” 20. Though the High Court has referred to the said pronouncement, yet it has not applied the ratio correctly to the facts. This Court has clearly stated that if a person is prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree, he can maintain an appeal. In the present case, as we find, the plaintiff claiming to be a co-sharer filed the suit and challenged the will. The defendant No. 5, the brother of the plaintiff, supported his case. In an appeal at the instance of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4, the judgment and decree was overturned. The plaintiff entered into a settlement with the contesting defendants who had preferred the appeal. Such a decree, we are disposed to think, prejudicially affects the defendant No. 5 and, therefore, he could have preferred an appeal. It is worthy to note that the grievance pertained to the nature and character of the property and the trial court had decreed the suit. He stood benefited by such a decree. The same having been unsettled, the benefit accrued in his favour became extinct. It needs no special emphasis to state that he had suffered a legal injury by virtue of the over turning of the decree. His legal right has been affected. In this context, we may refer to a recent pronouncement in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. The State of Maharashtra & ors.[8] wherein this Court has held thus: - “A “legal right”, means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India & ors., AIR 1977 SC 1361).” 21. Though the said judgment was delivered in a different context, yet it is applicable to the obtaining factual matrix regard being had to the conception of legal injury. Thus, indubitably, the present appellant was a person aggrieved and was prejudicially affected by the decree and, hence, the appeal could not have been thrown overboard treating as not maintainable. 22. In view of the aforesaid premised reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, treat the second appeal preferred by the present appellant to be maintainable in law and remit the matter to the High Court with a request to decide the appeal within a period of six months. Needless to say, we have not expressed any opinion on any of the aspects which pertain to the merits of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs.