JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member. - Second appeal has been filed by Nagina against Gaon Samaj, State, Gaffar and others as second appeal No. 45 of 1983-84. This second appeal has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner dated November 14, 1983. 2. The facts of the case are that Gaon Samaj and State filed the suit under Section 209/167 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This suit was decreed by the lower court by its order dated February 8, 1983. Hence two appeals were filed by Nagina, and Gaffar and others. The appeals were disposed off by the same order as mentioned above. The appeal was allowed and in it, it was also observed that Nagina had no right and Abdul Sattar and others were owners of the property. That means the suit of the Gaon Sabha and State was dismissed but the observations regarding the rights of defendants inter se have been made. 3. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the suit of the Gaon Sabha was dismissed, hence the defendants had no right to appeal because the order was in their favour. No appeal or revision was filed by the Gaon Sabha or State. Hence the appeal by the defendant should be rejected as it is not permissible under the provision of law. 4. No doubt it is correct law that every person has an inherent right to bring a suit of civil nature unless it is barred by statute but the right to appeal must have the clear authority of law. Sections 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure deal with the appeals. Order 43 rule 1 of the Code provides for appeal against order passed under the various rules. Section 105(1) of the Code lays down that no appeal shall lie from any order save as otherwise specially provided. Hence it is clear that the appeal lies against the decree or order passed by the court and no appeal can lie against a mere finding vide Ganga Bai v. Vijai Kumar A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1126. 5. Section 105(1) of the Code lays down that no appeal shall lie from any order save as otherwise specially provided. Hence it is clear that the appeal lies against the decree or order passed by the court and no appeal can lie against a mere finding vide Ganga Bai v. Vijai Kumar A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1126. 5. Here the second appeal has been filed against judgment of Additional Commissioner dated November 14, 1983 but by this judgment the suit has been dismissed and the defendant cannot be said to be aggrieved by the said judgment and he cannot file appeal against the decree which is in his or her favour. In another way it is an appeal against the finding. 6. The Additional Commissioner by his judgment dated November 14, 1983 no doubt has observed certain things which were not material for dismissing or decreeing the suit of the Gaon Sabha. Moreover, the inter se rights of the defendants were not to be decided for the disposal of the present suit. Hence such observations made by the Additional Commissioner in regard to the rights or the defendants inter se are irrelevant and frivolous and they cannot be given any importance. Apart from this that observation cannot be res judicata between co-defendants vide Chandu Lal v. Khalilur Rahman A.I.R. 1950 (P.C.) 17. In this case it was observed by their lordships that the doctrine of res judicata between the co-defendants would be applicable if there was a conflict of interest between co-defendants, it was necessary to decide that conflict in order to give the plaintiff the appropriate relief and there was a decision on that question between the co-defendants. 7. But these conditions are not present in this case as observed above. Hence the observation made by the learned Additional Commissioner is frivolous and it cannot operate as res judicata. 8. As the appeal cannot be filed against finding and the defendant cannot file an appeal against an order in which the suit has been dismissed, therefore, the second appeal is not maintainable and it is hereby rejected.