JUDGMENT : R.S. Singh, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 14-5-1975 dismissing the appeal filed by the Defendant Petitioner as not maintainable. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Bachchey Lal was the last tenure-holder of the land in dispute. He died after the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On his death the dispute arose about his holdings between his widow and widowed mother. In mutation proceedings, it appears that on the basis of compromise the names of both the parties were ordered to be mutated in place of Bachchey Lal deceased. Smt. Ram Kunwari, Respondent No. 3, filed a suit u/s 229-B of the Act against Smt. Kalawati, the Petitioner, for a declaration that she is the sole-tenure-holder on the ground that Smt. Kalawati remarried with Amar Singh after the death of her husband Khuman. The suit was contested by the Petitioner on the ground that she has not remarried and she asserted that the Respondent No. 3 had remarried after the death of her husband Bachchey Lal. Therefore, the Petitioner is the sole heir of Bachchey Lal. 3. The trial court dismissed the suit of the Respondent No. 3 on the finding that she had remarried and that the Petitioner has not remarried. The Respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal against the decree of the trial court, which was dismissed and the decree of the trial court was affirmed on the finding that neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent No. 3 had remarried and that both are heirs of Bachchey Lal according to the law in force at that time. The Defendant petitioned filed a second appeal which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue as not maintainable. The Defendant-Petitioner has challenged the order of the Board of Revenue before this Court in writ petition. 4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that although the dismissal of the appeal was in favour of the Defendant Petitioner but she was aggrieved by the finding of the Additional Commissioner by which it was held that the Plaintiff Respondent had not remarried. According to the Petitioner this finding adversely affects her rights and it will operate as res-judicata against her. According to the Petitioner this finding adversely affects her rights and it will operate as res-judicata against her. Therefore, the appeal filed by her was maintainable and the Board of Revenue has committed an error of law in dismissing the same as not maintainable. 5. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 that the appeal lies against the decree and when the decree of the Additional Commissioner was in favour of the Defendant-Petitioner, she has no right to maintain the second appeal and the Board of Revenue has rightly rejected the appeal as not maintainable. 6. It is necessary, in this case, to examine various provisions for filing an appeal under the CPC and the Z.A. & L.R. Act. 7. There are separate provisions for filing appeals against the decree and against the order in the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 96 of the CPC is the provision for filing an appeal against the original decree and Section 100 provides a second appeal against the decree of the first appellate court whereas Section 104 read with Order XLIII is the provision for filing an appeal against an order. The Act under the provisions of which the suit was originally filed contains only Section 331 for filing appeals against the decrees and orders. Section 331 gives right of appeal against decrees as well as order. Section 331(4) is the provision for second appeal on the grounds specified in Section 100 of the CPC from the final order or decree passed in appeal. 8. There is no specific provision in the CPC or the Act for providing an appeal against a finding. However, it was urged on behalf of the Petitioner that although the decree is in favour of the Petitioner but in case she was aggrieved by an adverse finding she had right of appeal. He placed reliance on Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Dept. of Food), New Delhi Vs. Pearl Hosiery Mills and Others, AIR 1961 P&H 281 , Gangappa Gurupadappa Gugwad Gulbarga Vs. Rachawwa Gugwad and Others, AIR 1971 SC 442 and Lachman Singh v. Mohan ILR 2 All. 487 (FB). 9. In Lachman Singh v. Mohan (supra) the suit was dismissed with an adverse finding against a Defendant. of Food), New Delhi Vs. Pearl Hosiery Mills and Others, AIR 1961 P&H 281 , Gangappa Gurupadappa Gugwad Gulbarga Vs. Rachawwa Gugwad and Others, AIR 1971 SC 442 and Lachman Singh v. Mohan ILR 2 All. 487 (FB). 9. In Lachman Singh v. Mohan (supra) the suit was dismissed with an adverse finding against a Defendant. The appeal filed by the Defendant was held to be maintainable by the majority judgment (Straight J. dissenting) on the finding that the Defendants were entitled to appeal from such decree. This decision was considered by a subsequent larger Bench reported in Jamaitunnissa v. Lutfunnissa ILR 7 All. 606 wherein a contrary view was taken and the judgment of Straight, J. referred to above was approved and followed. The case of Jamaitunnissa (Supra) has been followed in the recent decision of the Madras High Court reported in Corporation of Madras v. P.R. Ramachandriah AIR 1977 Mad. 25 wherein it has been held that it is well settled that the party not aggrieved by a decree is not competent to appeal against the decree on the ground that an issue is found against him. 10. In Banarsi Sah and Others Vs. Bhagwanlal Sah and Others, AIR 1977 Patna 206 it was held that where a decree is absolutely in favour of the party but some issues are found against him he has no right to appeal against the decree. It was further held that simply because there was an adverse finding against the Defendant on one point, a plea of res-judicata cannot be founded on that decision, because the Defendant having succeeded on other pleas, he had no occasion to go further as to the finding recorded against him. 11. In Smt. Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay Kumar and Others, AIR 1974 SC 1126 it has been held clearly that the appeal lies against a decree and not against a mere finding. In view of this decision, no reliance can be placed on the cases reported in Union of India v. Pearl Hosiery Mills (supra) and Gangappa Gurupadappa Gugwad v. Rachawwa (Supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Moreover the case of Gangappa Gurupadappa Gugwad v. Rachawwa (Supra) is not directly on the point involved in the instant case. 12. Moreover the case of Gangappa Gurupadappa Gugwad v. Rachawwa (Supra) is not directly on the point involved in the instant case. 12. The view taken in Budh Sen v. Sheel Chandra Agarwal 1977 AWG 553 also supports the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent. In this case it has been held that the CPC does not contemplate an appeal against a mere finding in the absence of any challenge to the decree itself. 13. As a matter of fact right of a person for filing suit and appeal is not the same. There is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of civil nature unless the suit is barred by statute. No authority of law is required to bring a suit and it is enough if there is no provision of law to bar such suit. But there is no inherent right in any person to file an appeal against any decree or order unless there is specific provision of law to that effect. That is why, the right of appeal is described as a creature of statute. 14. In the instant case, it is clear that the Defendant Petitioner was not aggrieved by the decree passed in appeal but was aggrieved only by a finding recorded adversely against her. The provisions of Sections 96, 100, 104 and 105 read with Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the CPC provide appeal only against a decree or an order. Similarly Section 331 of the Act provides an appeal only against a decree on an order. There is no specific provision under the Code or the Act for an appeal against a finding. Therefore, no appeal can lie against a mere finding for the simple reason that there is no specific provision for any such appeal. In view of these facts, in the absence of a specific provision the second appeal filed by the Defendant Petitioner against a finding before the Board of Revenue was not maintainable and the Board of Revenue has committed no error in dismissing the appeal in limine as not maintainable. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions I find no force in this petition which is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.