( 1 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 54 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Proddatur, the appellate-plaintiff, was successful in the trial Court in getting a decree of declaration that she was a lawful owner of C D E F portion in the suit Sketch Ext. A1 and also the relief of permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of C D E F portion. However, it was directed that the plaintiff shall pay the suit costs to the defendants. Aggrieved by that portion of the judgment and decree relating to awarding of costs in favour of the defendants though the appellant-plaintiff was successful, the present appeal is filed. ( 2 ) MRS. Bhramaramba representing Sri. Gangaiah Naidu had taken me through judgment and decree of the trial Court and had contended that though the appellant-plaintiff was the successful party directing a successful party to pay costs to the respondents-defendants is not only illegal, but also unsustainable. The learned counsel also had taken me through the respective pleadings of the parties and the issues and also the findings, which had been recorded by the trial Court on the strength of the evidence let in by the parties P. W. 1 DW1 and DW2, Exs. A1 to A5 and also Exs. B1 to B5. ( 3 ) ON the contrary the learned counsel for the respondents made an attempt to justify the awarding of costs even in favour of an unsuccessful party, since awarding of costs is always within the discretion of the Court. Heard both the counsel. The only question that is to be decided in the present appeal is whether the trial Court is justified in awarding costs in favour of an unsuccessful party. ? ( 4 ) THE facts are simple and plain and the appellant-plaintiff as already specified supra filed a suit for declaration of title to the property shown as C D E F in the plaint sketch and for a permanent injunction. It is not in dispute that the trial Court had decree the suit as prayed for, but however instead of directing the respondents - defendants to pay the cost the plaintiff was directed to pay the suit costs to the defendants. Evidently, in my considered opinion, this should be a bona fide mistake on the part of the trial Court. It is not in dispute that the trial Court had decree the suit as prayed for, but however instead of directing the respondents - defendants to pay the cost the plaintiff was directed to pay the suit costs to the defendants. Evidently, in my considered opinion, this should be a bona fide mistake on the part of the trial Court. The appellant plaintiff who was successful party in the trial court could have as well moved the same Court for rectification of this mistake, but for the reasons best known, a regular appeal is filed questioning only that portion of finding. It may be that while decreeing the suit, the Court might have granted costs in favour of the successful party or could have refused is granting costs, which is no doubt within the discretion of the Court. But here is a case where the plaintiff was directed to pay the suit costs to the defendants unsuccessful parties. ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, the discretion exercised by the trial Court cannot be said to be in accordance with law and hence the finding of the trial Court directing the appellant-plaintiff to pay suit costs to the respondents-defendants cannot be sustained and the said finding is liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel Mrs. Bramaramba with all emphasis had prayed for awarding of costs inasmuch as the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was decreed as prayed for. After going through the findings recorded by the trial Court, I am satisfied that the trial Court should have exercised the discretion of granting costs in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. According the appeal is allowed and the finding that the plaintiff shall pay suit costs to the defendant is hereby set aside with a further direction that the respondents-defendants shall pay costs through out to the appellant-plaintiff. The appeal is allowed with costs through out.