( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal aga,inst the judgment and decree dated 24-7-1972, passed by the CM1 judge, Gulba,rga, in RA No. 184 of 1970 on his file, avowing the appeal, on re,veirsing the judgment and decree dated 31-8-1970, passed by the Munsiff, Shorapur, in O. S. No. 41, of 1969 on his file and, dis-allowing the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff instituted the suit for injunction. It was resisted by the defendant. The trial Court raised the following issues as arising from the pleadings: (1) Does plaintiff prove that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the, suit land? (2) Doies plaintiff further prove that the defendant interfered with his possession and enjoyment since 2-4-1969? (3) To what relief the parties are entitled? ( 3 ) THE, trial Court, appreciating the evidence on reward, neld under issue No. 1 that the plaintiff was in lawful possesision of the, cuit land, on the date of the suit. But, it dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff did not establish any intejrference on the part of the defspdant. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the finding on first issue,, the defendant went up in appeal before the learned Civil Judge, Gulbarga, The learned Civil Judge, as stated, above, allowed the appeal and set aside the finding on Issue No. 1 given by the, trial Court ( 5 ) IT is against that judgment and decree, the present Second appeal is instituted by the plaintiff. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the; appellant vehemently contended that no appeal could lie before the learned civil judge; as the suit itself was dismissed and that was in favour of the defendant. He submitted that the decree wasi one of dismissal of the, suit and there) could not be any appeal on a finding given on an issue. ( 7 ) AS against that, thes learned Counsel appearing for the respondent argued supporting the reasoning of the learned civil judge ( 8 ) THE sole point, therefore, that arises inr my consideration in this appeal is, whether any appeal against the finding of an issue could lie to the civil judge. ( 9 ) IT is well settled that an appeal lies under S. 96 CPC against a, decree. ( 9 ) IT is well settled that an appeal lies under S. 96 CPC against a, decree. A mere, finding on an issue in a suit where the, suit itself is dismissed cannot be constructed as a decree. When the suit itself is dismissed, a finding on an issue, even if it is against the defendant, will not be final against him. It will not act as res judicate. That being so, a mere finding on an issue cannot be considered a decree. ( 10 ) IN fact, the Supreme Court of India had an occasion to consider this aspect in the case of Ganga Bal v. Vijay Kumar, AIR. 1974 SC. 1126. . His Lordship chandrachud, J. , as he then waft who delivered the judgment for the bench has clearly observed in the decision that right of appeal is a creature of statute and that a mere finding on an issue, would not amount to a decree,. Speaking on this aspect in paras 16 and 17 of the judgment. His lordship observed thus:"16. Under S. 96 (1) of the. Code of Civil Procedure,, save where otherwise expressly provided by the Code or by any Dither law for the time being in force, an appeal lies from every decree; passed by any court exercising otriginal jurisdiction, to the court authorised to hear appeals from the decisions of such court. S. 100 provides for a second appeal to the High Court from an appellate decree passed by a Court subordinate tp the High Court. S. 104 (1) provides for appeals against orders of the kind therein mentioned and ordains that save as otherwise expressly provided by the Code or by any law for the, time being in force, an appeal shall lie "from no other orders. " Clause (1) of this section provides for an appeal against "any orders made under Rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules," order 43, R. 1 of the, Code, which by reason of'cl. (1) of S. 104 (1) forms a part of that section, provides for appeals against orders passed under various rules referred to in clauses (a) to (w) there of. Finally s. 105 (1) of the Coda lays down that save a,s otherwise expressly provided, no appeal shall lie from any order made by a Court in exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction. 17. Finally s. 105 (1) of the Coda lays down that save a,s otherwise expressly provided, no appeal shall lie from any order made by a Court in exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction. 17. These; provisions show that under the, Code, of Civil Producedure. an appeal lies only as against a decree) or as against an, order passed under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed, by Order 43, rule 1. No appeal can lie against a mere finding for the simple reason that the. Code does not provide for any such appeal. It must follow that first Appeal No. 72 of 1959 filed by defendants 2 and 3 was not maintainable as it was directed against a mere finding recorded by the trial Court". ( 11 ) THE learned civil judge has entirely missed the, point in holding that, a finding on an issue amounts to a decree. His finding is highly erroneous and illegal. Thai being so, I am constrained to hold that the appeal could not lie before; the learned Civil Judge and also thq cross objections as the appeal itself was not tenable. ( 12 ) IN the result therefore, the appeal is allowed. The decree of the learned civil judge is set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court are sustained, and restored. No costs. --- *** --- .