JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as defendants) against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dbaramshala in Civil Appeal No, 241/86-65/89 dated 31-10-1990, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Court No. 2, Palampur, District Kangra in case No, J53 of 19S4 and 156 of1984 dismissing the suit of the respondent (hereafter referred to as the plaintiff) has been upheld. 2. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the plaintiff has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of this appeal and in support of his submission, he has drawn the attention of this court to the definition of decree under section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has further submitted that admittedly the suit was filed by the plaintiff for an injunction whereby a decree was sought against the defendants restraining them from cutting the trees or raising the structures besides restraining them from proceeding with the correction application pending before the Settlement Officer, Kangra in respect of the suit land as according to the plaintiff, the land in suit was joint property and since he filed an application for partition of the joint holding before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, the same was dismissed on 4-2-1984 and the said order was under appeal. Defendants were stated to be clever per-sons and were threatening to remove the trees standing on the suit land besides further trying to occupy the best portion of the suit land by raising structures thereon. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants were threatening to get the revenue entries corrected from the Settlement Officer As such the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. The suit was contested and resisted by the defendants, who claimed themselves to be in exclusive possession of the suit land being tenants thereof since the times immemorial and had acquired the proprietary rights under the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. It was further pleaded by the defendants that the revenue record showing the plaintiff as owner was merely a paper entry and no benefit could be derived by him from such entries. It was further pleaded by the defendants that the revenue record showing the plaintiff as owner was merely a paper entry and no benefit could be derived by him from such entries. According to the defendants, they are in possession so far their own share is concerned as co-sharers and are tenants in respect of the share of the plaintiff on payment of Rs 6.75 as lagaan (rent) The defendants further alleged that on the failure of the plaintiff to prove his title to the land in question, his application was dismissed and he has no right, title or interest in the suit land since during settlement, the entries were not recorded according to the facts existing on the spot regarding possession, therefore, they had applied for correction of the revenue records Besides this, other pleas like estoppel, plaintiff having no cause of action, suit being not maintainable and the plaintiff having no locus standi as also the same being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties were also raised. In replication, these pleas were controverted by the plaintiff. On the aforesaid pleadings, the parties went to trial on the following issues :— 1. Whether the suit land is joint between the parties, as alleged ? 2. Whether the defendants are liable to be restrained from raising structure and cutting trees from the suit land ? OPP 3. Whether the defendant has become owner, as alleged ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit by his act and conduct ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD 6. Whether suit is not maintainable ? OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi ? OPD 9. Relief Issues No 1, 3 and 4 were decided against the defendants and issues No. 2, 5 to 8 were decided against the plaintiff and consequently under issue No. 9, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. It may be appropriate to mention here that the plaintiff was not aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit and thus, he did not file any appeal in respect of the findings on. Issue No. 2 and 5 to 9. However, the present appellants were not satisfied with the findings recorded on issues No. 1, 3 and 4. It may be appropriate to mention here that the plaintiff was not aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit and thus, he did not file any appeal in respect of the findings on. Issue No. 2 and 5 to 9. However, the present appellants were not satisfied with the findings recorded on issues No. 1, 3 and 4. So, they preferred an appeal before the learned lower appellate Court, which was dismissed. 3. It is in the aforesaid background that the objection raised on behalf of the plaintiff has to be appreciated. According to Mr. K. D, Sood, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the findings recorded on issues decided against the appellants by the trial Court firstly were uncalled for, as according to him, while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, the trial Court ought not to have gone into those issues and secondly, such findings recorded against the defendants would not operate as res-judicata in any subsequent proceedings between the parties under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On legal aspect, Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants has no quarrel However, Mr. Gupta has strenuously urged that the plaintiff ought to have raised this objection regarding maintainability of the first appeal before the lower appellate Court. Therefore, according to him, the plaintiff is precluded from raising this objection in this appeal. 4. After considering the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the contention raised by Mr. Gupta cannot hold ground. In this behalf, it may be appropriate to notice that an appeal is a creation of statute and unless a right is conferred under law, a party cannot maintain the same Although there are certain exceptions to this rule, viz. where a party is directly going to be affected by a decree which goes against it without its being made a party, in such a situation, the party concerned can file and maintain the appeal with the leave of the appellate Court. This situation admittedly does not exist in the present case. Learned Counsel for the defendants was unable to point out how the appeal of his clients was maintainable either before the lower appellate Court or before this Court. 5. This situation admittedly does not exist in the present case. Learned Counsel for the defendants was unable to point out how the appeal of his clients was maintainable either before the lower appellate Court or before this Court. 5. As already held that the findings recorded on issues against the defendants also do not operate as res-judicata, therefore, the appeal before the lower appellate Court was not maintainable and thus, the present appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be rejected. 6. In Madras Corporation v P. R. Ramachandriah, AIR 1977 Mad 25, a Division Bench of the said court held that when a party is not aggrieved by a decree, it was not competent to appeal against the decree on the ground that an issue is found against him Similarly in K. L. Bapuji v. State, AIR 1977 AP 427, a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court has also taken the similar view that if all the defendants have common interest in obtaining the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff and if for dismissing the suit it is not necessary to decide the controversy between the defendants inter se, the findings recorded on the controversy between the defendants themselves would not be res-judicata No appeal in the aforesaid circumstances, when the entire decree is in favour of the defendants, would lie against the findings at the instance of the defendant aggrieved by it. To the similar effect is a Full Bench judgment of Patna High Court reported in Arjun Singh v. 71 D Ghosh, AIR 1974 Pat I, where amongst other things, it was observed that appeal would only be maintainable if the findings on the issues decided against the party appealing would operate as res-judicata Since the findings recorded against the appellants on issues in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen do operate as res judicata, therefore, this judgment squarely covers the case of the plaintiff regarding the maintainability of the appeal. No decision to the contrary has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the appellants. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, admittedly the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and further there is no executable decree in his favour wherefrom the plaintiff can derive any benefit against the defendants. No decision to the contrary has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the appellants. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, admittedly the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and further there is no executable decree in his favour wherefrom the plaintiff can derive any benefit against the defendants. The appeal, if any, in the facts of the present case could be maintained by the plaintiff and not by the defendants as filed by them before the lower appellate Court. From whatever angle the case may be viewed, the fact remains that the appeal by the appellants before the lower appellate Court was incompetent and consequently the present appeal is also not maintainable. 8. No other contention has been raised on behalf of the appellants to show as to how this appeal is competent. 9. Since the appeal is being disposed of on legal question of maintainability of the same, other contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties have not been gone into. 10. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed. -