JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a defendants' second appeal in a suit for declaration that the second plaintiff-respondent, since deceased, was the Sarvarakar of the first plaintiff and president of the Trust Committee of Shri Dwarka Dhish Ji Mabaraj arid for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from intering in any way with the functioning of the second plaintiff-respondent as the Sarvarakar of the first plaintiff'. The suit has been dismissed in its entirety by both the courts below, yet this second appeal. 2. On objection being raised by me to the maintainability of the second appeal, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants, pleaded that it has been found by the lower appellate court that the trust-deed under which the defendants were claiming to be the trustees of the plaintiff deity was void and that prejudicially affected their interest. 3. In deed, in the plaint as it was originally filed, it was not the plaintiffs case that the trust-deed was void. The defendants never claimed that the trust-deed was void. The dispute between the parties was as to who was the proper Sarvarakar of the deity. However, after the dismissal of the suit by the trial court's judgment dated 8th April, 1961, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-respondents in the district court and at the hearing of the appeal leave was sought to amend the plaint by adding the words : *In the alternative nLrkost eq0 31-12-42 dkuwuu dyvne vkSj ---- void gS fygktk eqn~nbZ ua0 2 i0 cU'kh/kj V~LV ds cgSfl;r founder ljojkgdkj gS vkSj mudh vygnxh dkuwu vey esa ugha vk ldrh gSA The lower appellate court allowed the amendment and by its order dated 18th January, 1963 remanded the suit for re-trial, aggrieved, the defendants appealed to this Court from that order remand. The appeal, being F.A.F.O. No. 62 of 1963, was allowed by this court's order dated 8th November, 1965. The order allowing the amendment was not set aside but the order remanding the suit for re-trial was set aside and it was ordered that the lower appellate court shall rebear the appeal on the material already on the record. The judgment under appeal was passed on 24th August, 1966 after the said remand of the appeal by this court. 4. The judgment under appeal was passed on 24th August, 1966 after the said remand of the appeal by this court. 4. The basis of the judgment under appeal is that the plaintiff-respondents did not know what they were about when they claimed that the trust-deed was void and the finding is that the trust-deed being void, the second plaintiff could not be declared to be the Sarvarakar of the first plaintiff, deity and consequently the suit was liable to be dismissed, but on a ground different from that adopted by the trial court. 5. The decree maintaining the dismissal of the suit that was thus passed by the lower appellate court, is in favour of the defendant-appellants. They are aggrieved only against the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court that the trust-deed is void. But an appeal does not lie from a finding. An appeal is a creature of statute and a second appeal is permitted only from a decree passed on appeal by a court subordinate to the High Court. Obviously, the appeal from decree can be filed only by a person who is aggrieved from the decree. The plaintiffs could in the present case file an appeal from the decree of the lower appellate court but the defendants could not do so. However, it is the defendants who have filed the present second appeal and not the plaintiffs. The result is that although the findings recorded by the lower appellate court that the trust-deed is void, is binding on the second plaintiff-respondent, since deceased, and now represented by his heirs and legal representatives, it cannot bind the defendant-appellants or the deity. Whom they claim to represent in any other litigation. The appeal fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.