Judgement This appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the District Judge Lakhimpur in Title Appeal No. 1 of 1982 dismissing the appeal. 2. TS No. 14 of 1979 was brought by Hira Bordoloi against Maniram Saikia, Thagiram Kalita and State of Assam in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Lakhimpur for declaration of his right, title and interest of an elephant. Maniram Saikia also instituted the TS No. 15 of 1979 against Hira Bordoloi, Thaciram Kalita and State of Assam in the Court of Assistant District Judge, North Lakhimpur for delcaration of his right, title and interest in respect of the elephant which is the subject-matter of the suit, TS No. 14 of 1979 brought by Hira Bordoloi. The trial Court disposed of both the suits by a common judgment dismissing the suit brought by Maniram and decreeing the suit brought by Hira declaring his right in respect of the disputed elephant. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Assistant District Judge, Maniram filed Title Appeal No. 1 of 1982 in the Court of the District Judge, Lakhimpur. The memorandum of appeal shows that the appeal is against the judgment and decree passed in TS No. 15 of 1979 instituted by Maniram. However, the judgment of the District Judge indicates that the appeal was filed against the judgments and decrees passed in TS Nos. 14 and 15 of 1979. The mere recital in the judgment would not make two appeals or an appeal against the decrees passed in TS Nos. 14 and 15 of 1979, when ii is not supported by the facts on records. 4. A question which, therefore, arises is whether the failure of Maniram to file two appeals would operate as res judicata in the present appeal. 5. Section 96(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 runs: "Appeal from original decree - (1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorised to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court." (Emphasis added) If there are two different suits based on different causes of action, there must be two different decrees. The use of the expressions "an appeal" and "every decree" in Section 96, C. P.C. makes it clear that each decree should be the subject-matter of an independent appeal; and that one appeal against two decrees passed in two different suits based on different causes of action is not contemplated. Therefore, the general law is: "one decree -one appeal". However, there may be exception if it is provided under the relevant laws. This view of mine is further strengthened by the proviso to O.41. R. I, C.P.C. The proviso reads : "Provided that where two or more suits have been tried together and a common judgment has been delivered therefor and two or more appeals are filed against any decree covered by that judgment, whether by the same appellant or by different appellants, the Appellate Court may dispense with the filing of more than one copy of the judgment." Therefore, it is concluded that Maniram should have filed two appeals, one against the decree of dismissal of TS No. 15 of 1979 brought by him and another against the decree in favour of Hari in TS No. 14 of 1979 instituted by Hira. As no appeal has been filed against one of the two decrees, the other decree which has been allowed to become final will operate as res judicata in the present appeal. That apart, it is a concurrent finding of fact of the Courts below that the respondent Hira Bordoloi is the owner of the elephant in dispute. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.