Short Note : 1. The plaintiff appellant's suit for specific performance was dismissed but a decree of Rs. 2,000/- was passed against the defendants. Plaintiff filed an appeal the prayer in the appeal was that his suit for specific performance ought to have been decreed by the trial Court. On 9th September 1974, a sum of Rs. 500/- was offered by the defendants as first instalment which was accepted by the plaintiff's counsel. A plea was raised by the defendants that in view of this acceptance of money by the plaintiff's counsel, the right to pursue the appeal of the appellant came to an end and that the appeal should be dismissed as an infructuous. The plaintiff pleaded that the money was accepted by his counsel under a mistake. This plea was negatived and the appeal was dismissed as infructuous. Held: It is not necessary to decide whether the plaintiff's counsel accepted Rs. 500/- on 9th September 1974, under a mistake or otherwise. Even assuming that the amount was accepted as first instalment towards the payment of Rs. 2,000/- which was decreed by the trial Court. This Court is of opinion that the right to pursue the appeal did not come to an end. It is settled that in the absence of some statutory provision or of a well-recognised principle of equity" no one can be deprived of his legal rights including a statutory right of appeal. It is further held that a statutory right of appeal cannot be presumed to have come to an end because the appellant has in the meantime abided by or taken advantage of something done by the opponent under the decree. Applying, these principles, it is clear to this Court that the appellant's right to pursue his appeal in the first appellate Court did not come to an end because of the fact that his counsel during the pendency of the said appeal accepted Rs 500/- a first installment towards the payment of the money decree that was passed by the trial Court. Bhan Ram v. Brijnath, Singh, AIR 1961 SC 1327 , relied on. Appeal allowed.