JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J. (Oral) 1. At the time of admission of the present appeal, a question with regard to maintainability of the appeal was raised. 2. The dispute between the parties pertains to the succession to the estate of deceased Mauji Ram, father of the parties, namely, the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2. The plaintiff claims to have succeeded to the estate of deceased Mauji Ram on the basis of the will alleged to have been executed in her favour on October 31, 1993, while defendants No. 1 and 2 have claimed succession to the estate of their father on the basis of will dated June 16, 1993, alleged to have been executed in their favour. 3. The trial Court on May 30, 1997, dismissed the suit by holding the will dated June 16, 1993 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 to be valid and the will dated October 31, 1993, set up by the plaintiff to be invalid. In appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the learned first Appellate Court after affirming the findings of the learned trial Court holding the will dated October 31, 1993 in favour of the plaintiff to be invalid, set aside the findings of the Court below on Issue No. 4 holding the will dated June 16, 1993 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 as invalid. Since both the wills set up by the parties were held to be invalid, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and the parties were held entitled to succeed to the estate of their father by way of intestate succession to the extent of 1/3rd share each. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court on Issue No. 4 holding the will in their favour to be invalid, defendants No. 1 and 2 have approached this Court by virtue of the present second appeal. 5. An objection was raised on behalf of respondent-plaintiff with regard to maintainability of the appeal, it was contended that since the appellants-defendants are not in any way aggrieved by the decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, no appeal is maintainable against adverse findings recorded under Issue. No.4. 6. 5. An objection was raised on behalf of respondent-plaintiff with regard to maintainability of the appeal, it was contended that since the appellants-defendants are not in any way aggrieved by the decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, no appeal is maintainable against adverse findings recorded under Issue. No.4. 6. In Ganga Bai V. Vijay Kumar and others, AIR 1974 SC 1126, in a suit to enforce a mortgage of joint family property executed by the father as manager of the joint family, a preliminary decree for sale was passed only against the half share of the father in the mortgaged property and the suit was dismissed against the sons on the ground that the mortgage not being for legal necessity was not binding on the sons interest under the Hindu Law. The sons filed an appeal not against any part of the preliminary decree but only against the findings of the trial Court that the partition between the father and sons effected subsequent to the mortgage in suit was a sham and colourable transaction. An objection was raised with regard to maintainability of the appeal. The High Court field the appeal to be maintainable. However, on further appeal, the Honble Supreme Court, holding that the appeal was not maintainable, observed: "16. Under Section 96(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, save where otherwise expressly provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal lies from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction, to the court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such court. Section 100 provides for a second appeal to the High Court from an appellate decree passed by a court subordinate to the High Court. Section 104(1) provides for appeals against orders of the kind therein mentioned and ordains that save as otherwise expressly provided by the Code or by any law for the time being in force an appeal shall lie from no other orders. Clause (I) of this second provides for an appeal against any orders made under Rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules. Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code, which by reason of clause (I) of Section 104 (1) forms a part of that section, provides for appeals against orders passed under various rules referred to in clauses (a) to (w) thereof. Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code, which by reason of clause (I) of Section 104 (1) forms a part of that section, provides for appeals against orders passed under various rules referred to in clauses (a) to (w) thereof. Finally, Section 105 (1) of the Code lays down that save as otherwise expressly provided, no appeal shall lie from any order made by a Court in exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction. 17. The provisions show that under the code of Civil Procedure, an appeal lies only as against a decree or as against an order passed under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by order 43, Rule 1. No appeal can lie against a mere finding for the simple reason that the Code does not provide for any such appeal. It must follow that first Appeal No. 72 of 1959 filed by defendants 2 and 3 was not maintainable as it was directed against a mere finding recorded by the trial Court". 7. The above ratio was reiterated in Deva Ram and another V. Ishwar Chand and another, AIR, 1996 SC 378 and it was held that an appeal does not lie against mere "findings" recorded by a Court j unless the findings amount to a "decree" or "order". Where a suit is n dismissed, the defendants against whom an adverse finding might have come to be recorded on some Issues, has no right of appeal and5 he cannot question those findings before the appellate Court. 8. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, the present appeal is not maintainable being against a finding recorded against the appellants-defendants under Issue No. 4 and the same is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. 9. A contention was raised on behalf of the appellants that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court on Issue No. 1 (Sic 4) with regard to the will dated June 16, 1993, would operate as res judicata against the defendants and they would be prejudiced in case the right of appeal is denied to them. As stated above, the appeal is not maintainable. The question whether the findings recorded under Issue No. 4 would operate as res judicata or not is not material for the purpose of present appeal and such question is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. 10. As stated above, the appeal is not maintainable. The question whether the findings recorded under Issue No. 4 would operate as res judicata or not is not material for the purpose of present appeal and such question is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. 10. As a result, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs.