Short Note : There is no dispute that on the death of Punnu in 1956, his mother Smt. Pusaiya (defendant No.2) and his three daughters became owners of the suit property. Consequently, on 29-4-1965 when the sale-deed Ex.2 was executed by defendants 1 & 2 on their behalf as well as on behalf of the plaintiffs as their guardians, the only owners of the property were defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case was that their share in the property had not been validly transferred as defendants 1 & 2 were not competent to alienate the plaintiffs' share in the property so that the sale was not binding on the plaintiffs. 2. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the entire sale made on 29-4-1965 was void and then decreed joint possession in favour of plaintiffs along with defendant No. 1. The first appeal in the Court below was filed only by the purchasers. The first appellate Court modified the decree of the trial Court by confining the relief only to that claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit, i.e., it held that the sale was void only to the extent of the plaintiffs' share in the properties. Against this decree, the defendant No.1 alone has come up in appeal, no grievance being made either by the plaintiffs or the purchasers. Held : K.M. Agarwal learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1, contends that the trial Court's decree which had granted some benefit also to the defendant No.1 should not have been curtailed by the first appellate Court so as to take away the benefit which the defendant No.1 had got thereunder. There is no reason to accept this argument. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs have got the relief which they claimed and at any rate the plaintiffs are not aggrieved by the decree passed by the first appellate Court. That decree has also not been passed against the defendant No.1 so that there is no occasion for the defendant No.1 to be aggrieved by the same. It has not been shown to me as to how the defendant No.1 was entitled to claim any relief as a result of what was claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit. That decree has also not been passed against the defendant No.1 so that there is no occasion for the defendant No.1 to be aggrieved by the same. It has not been shown to me as to how the defendant No.1 was entitled to claim any relief as a result of what was claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit. On general principles also, therefore, it is obvious that the defendant No.1 can have no occasion to complain against the decree of the first appellate Court, the same not being her and she not being entitled to the grant of any relief in her favour in the suit. For this reason alone, this appeal must fail. Appeal dismissed.