JUDGMENT : TUDBALL, J. 1. The objections filed are not cross-objections. The suit was a suit for possession of property and it was dismissed in toto as against the defendant-respondent. 2. It is obvious that the defendant-respondent could not have appealed from that decree. No appeal lies against the finding only on an issue. What he is clearly seeking in the present case to do is to support the decree on some of the grounds which have been decided against him in the Court below. These are not cross-objections and, therefore, the court-fee paid is sufficient.