JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Plaintiffs-respondents purchased total 28 decimals land of Plot Nos. 227, 278 and 279, situated in village-Maru. District Hazaribagh, detailed in Schedule-A, A-1 and A-2 to the plaint of Title Suit No. 39 of 1978, by virtue of two registered sale deeds dated 16.9.1970 and the third registered sale deed dated 6.5.1972 (Exhibits 1. 1/A and 1/B). 2. Plaintiffs further case was that on 19.2.1977, defendants dispossessed them from six decimals land detailed in Schedule B to the plaint, which was part and parcel of total 28 decimals land in Schedules A . A-l and A-2. 3. Defendants contested the suit on the ground that their ancestors were recorded tenants and had constructed house on Plot No. 281 at the aforesaid village Maru and had orally purchased four decimals land in Plot No. 277 from ancestor of defendant No. 5 for a consideration of Rs. 20/- for which the Sada sale deed dated 14.4.1945 was executed in favour of father of defendant No. 1 and others. Father of defendants 3 and 4 further conveyed four and half decimals land of Plot No. 278 for Rs. 20/- and for that too a Sada sale deed dated 14.4.1945 was executed. 4. Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that although the plaintiffs acquired valid title on the basis of Exhibits 1, 1/A and 1/B, but since they failed to prove their possession within 12 years from the date of filing of the suit, they could not establish their subsisting title. 5. The plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal, Defendants did not file any cross- appeal against the finding recorded by the trial Court on the question of plaintiffs title over the suit property. The court of appeal below on the basis of materials on record set aside the trial Courts finding on possession and held that it cannot be disbelieved that plaintiffs were dispossessed from the suit land in the year 1977, and as such plaintiffs had both title and possession over the suit land and the trial Court was not correct in holding that they were out of possession for more than twelve years. 6. I find that on the one hand, the plaintiffs claim was against Schedule A properties on the basis of the registered sale deed, Exhibits 1, 1/A, and 1/B and, admittedly. 6. I find that on the one hand, the plaintiffs claim was against Schedule A properties on the basis of the registered sale deed, Exhibits 1, 1/A, and 1/B and, admittedly. Schedule B property was part thereof, on the basis of the registered sale deeds Exhibits A series and on the other defendants advanced their claim over it on the basis of oral transfer and exchange. 7. In my opinion, therefore, there was nothing available to the contesting defendants to challenge the plaintiffs title and as such there was no material to set aside the said finding of the trial Court in exercise of powers under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is true that this rule expressly empowers appellate court on an appeal from one part of the decree to reverse or modify, the other part, but ordinarily this power should be exercised only where portion of the decree appealed against is so inseparably connected with the portion not appealed against that Justice cannot be done unless latter portion was also interfered with. The power under the rule is thus limited to that part of the decree which has been appealed from. It would not be exercised in favour of the respondent in absence of cross-objection, when he seeks to displace that part of the decree, which was in favour of the appellant. 8. In such circumstance. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court. 9. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed, but without costs. Let the lower Court records be sent down immediately. 10. Second appeal dismissed.