JUDGMENT N. Ananda, J.: The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 29/1999 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot has filed this appeal against the findings of the Trial Court on issue No.3 which reads thus: "3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that she has acquired suit land in lieu of her maintenance?" 2. The suit is for declaration of title and injunction against the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant had obtained a decree for maintenance in O.S. No. 35/1976 and a charge was created on the suit schedule properties in the above stated decree. The decree was challenged in RA No. 17/1978 wherein the decree was modified and the charge was restricted to the share of husband of the 1st defendant in the suit schedule properties. 3. In the instant suit, the 1st defendant has pleaded that the right of maintenance acquired by her in O.S. No. 35/1976 and the charge created therein has enlarged into absolute estate and she has become the absolute owner of suit 'B' schedule property. The plaintiffs while admitting the proceedings in O.S. No. 35/1996 and the relief granted to 1st defendant have contended that the plea of 1st defendant that she had become the absolute owner of suit 'B' schedule property by virtue of the decree obtained in O.S. No. 35/1976 is untenable. The plaintiffs have also raised other contentions. 4. The learned trial Judge on consideration of the contents of the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 35/1976 which was modified in RA No. 17/1978 has held the charge created in favour of the 1st defendant did not enlarge into absolute estate and the 1st defendant is not the owner of plaint 'B' schedule property. 5. The plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed in toto by answering issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and additional issue No.1 against plaintiffs. It may be incidentally noticed that defendants-3 and 4 who are the sisters of plaintiffs-1 and 2 had made a counter-claim for partition and separate possession of their shares, which was also dismissed. 6. On reconsideration of the matter, we find that the plea raised by 1st defendant that she has become the absolute owner of plaint 'B' schedule property and whatever limited rights conferred on her in O.S. No. 35/1976 got enlarged into absolute estate is thoroughly misconceived both in law and also on facts. 6. On reconsideration of the matter, we find that the plea raised by 1st defendant that she has become the absolute owner of plaint 'B' schedule property and whatever limited rights conferred on her in O.S. No. 35/1976 got enlarged into absolute estate is thoroughly misconceived both in law and also on facts. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly answered issue No.3 against the 1st defendant and the finding recorded by the trial Judge does not call for interference. 7. As already stated the suit was dismissed after answering the material issues against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not challenged the decree made in O.S.No.29/1999 dismissing their suit in toto by filing an appeal. However, when the defendant filed this appeal only against the finding on issue No.3 in the suit and on admission of this appeal and issue of notice of the appeal to the respondents plaintiffs-1 and 2 before the Trial Court in the suit have preferred cross-objection under Order 41, Rule 22 CPC. 8. Sri Datar, learned Counsel for the cross-objector has very vehemently urged that the cross-objection is one fully enabled under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 and that this Court is required to examine the cross-objection as an independent appeal even after dismissal of the appeal preferred by the 1st defendant. That the purpose and object of filing a cross-objection in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Superintending Engineer & Others Vs. B. Subba Reddy reported in (1999) 4 SCC 423 is to enable a non-appealing party whether a plaintiff or a defendant to achieve the very object which could have been otherwise achieved by filing an appeal under Section 96 CPC. Even when the party has not preferred an appeal under Section 96, on receipt of a notice of the admission of the appeal by the other parties to the suit and having filed such a cross-objection within the permitted time of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the cross-objection should be independently examined for granting relief to the cross-objector. 9. 9. It is also submitted that the purpose of filing cross-objection is to improve upon the findings which were recorded against plaintiffs if such findings are demonstrated to be wrong before the appellate Court and have to be reversed, automatically the cross-objector would be entitled for reversal of decree otherwise no useful purpose will be served by reversal of findings recorded against cross-objector and the very purpose of providing for a cross-objection will be defeated. 10. Mr. Datar would vehemently urge that notwithstanding the language of Order 41, sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of the exception contained therein, non-appealing party to a suit who might have suffered a decree to the extent that it is adverse to him may maintain a cross-objection in an appeal filed by the other side questioning the decree made against non-appealing party. The Supreme Court having interpreted this provision in the judgment referred to above and which in fact has been followed by a Single Judge, the observations contained in the Single Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Sri Annasaheb Balesha Waghe and Others Vs. Sri Appasaheb Dada Pommai & Others reported in ILR 2007 Kar 2395 being in consonance with the view expressed in the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, that a cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 is on par with an appeal under Section 96, Mr. Datar submits that if such is the law declared by the Supreme Court, the cross-objector who otherwise could have got the judgment and decree of the Trial Court reversed and got the suit decreed by filing an appeal can as well achieve this object through the cross-objection also, and therefore the cross-objection should be heard as a full appeal under Section 96. 11. While in theory a cross-objector in terms of Order 41, Rule 22(1) can definitely file a cross-objection, the moment an appeal is admitted for examination, a cross objector gets a right only on and after the main appeal is admitted. 12. Even then a cross-objection unless admitted, it will not go beyond the stage of Order 41, Rule 11. Even a cross-objection can be dealt with in terms of Order 41, Rule 11, as can be done in the case of an appeal under Section 96. The cross-objection is subject to such scrutiny. 13. 12. Even then a cross-objection unless admitted, it will not go beyond the stage of Order 41, Rule 11. Even a cross-objection can be dealt with in terms of Order 41, Rule 11, as can be done in the case of an appeal under Section 96. The cross-objection is subject to such scrutiny. 13. In the instant case, the cross-objection is by a non-suited plaintiff in the suit, who has failed in his object to get a decree of declaration that the suit schedule properties are the absolute properties of the plaintiffs and had sought for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the present appellant. 14. The 1st defendant had taken up the defence that the particular property viz., 'B' Schedule property agricultural land and the house going with the land is the absolute property of the 1st defendant for the reason that the 1st defendant had a charge created over the property which was a part of the joint family properties in a. decree for maintenance made in her favour which in fact during the lifetime of her husband had attained finality, notwithstanding the efforts on the part of opponents by way of a first appeal and second appeal. That after the death of her husband, the, limited estate of charge over the property has enlarged into an absolute estate of the 1st defendant. 15. On such logic and purported legal position the 1st defendant had contended that the finding recorded by the Trial Court is against the tenor and spirit of the earlier judgments and therefore, the finding should be reversed and for such purpose 1st defendant had preferred the instant appeal. 16. It is in such an appeal the non-suited plaintiffs have come up with a cross-objection and the learned Counsel is vehemently contending that the cross-objection is therefore a tenable and achievable cross-objection for the purpose of getting the suit decreed on the basis and the strength of the judgments referred to above. 17. 16. It is in such an appeal the non-suited plaintiffs have come up with a cross-objection and the learned Counsel is vehemently contending that the cross-objection is therefore a tenable and achievable cross-objection for the purpose of getting the suit decreed on the basis and the strength of the judgments referred to above. 17. Incidentally it is also brought to our notice that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants in the suit, the second wife and children of the husband of the 1st defendant had filed a counter-claim claiming 3/5th share in the suit property contending that it is a joint family property and therefore the plaintiffs cannot be declared as the absolute owners of this property none-the-less defendants-2 to 4 are entitled for partition and separate possession of their shares in the suit property. 18. The learned trial Judge on examination of the evidence let in by the parties, viz., plaintiffs and defendants found neither the plaintiffs case was tenable nor of any of the defendants, with the 1st defendant setting up a defence of enlarged absolute estate and defendants-2 to 4 setting up a claim for share in the family properties due to their relationship with the husband of the 1st defendant. The properties which were originally owned by the husband of the 1st plaintiff who can be described as a propositus of it has to be taken that there is a joint family, the property so claimed by 1st defendant as a successor on the death of her husband and to the extent she can succeed in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and the 2nd plaintiff claimed some of the suit schedule properties through a Will stated to have been executed by his father Karabasappa Gulappa @ Gulappagouda Dadami the husband of defendants-1 and 2 and father of 2nd plaintiff and defendants-3 and 4. It is in such a suit all the confusion and all sorts of claims, legal, tenable, factual, otherwise everything abounding. Further on examination of the evidence let in by the parties, the learned trial Judge found neither the plaintiffs have made good their case for granting any decree in their favour for declaring that they are the absolute owners of the suit property either under succession or through a Will nor defendants-2 to 4 had established title for decreeing the suit in terms of their counter-claim. It is against the dismissal on all aspects of the suit and the counter-claim, the instant appeal and the cross-objection. 19. While such is the factual background, the legal effect is one where a non-suited plaintiff is not enabled to claim a relief of reversal of the decree by filing a cross-objection under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22(1). We say so for the reason that the cross-objection enables a respondent in the main appeal to seek to support a decree to the extent it is in his favour and even by not filing an appeal and can also seek to get over a finding that has been wrongly recorded against him by the Trial Court but so long as it does not result in reversal of the decree granted by the lower Court. 20. However, Sri Datar, learned Counsel for the cross-objector drawing support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Superintending Engineer & Others Vs. B. Subba Reddy stated supra would strongly contend that by filing a cross-objection even a non-suited plaintiff can seek to achieve the reversal of the decree or the variation of the decree as could have been otherwise achieved by filing an appeal. The submission is that what the non-suited plaintiff could have achieved by filing an appeal under Section 96 can very well be achieved by filing a cross-objection in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 41. We are unable to accept the submission. We have also perused the judgment of the Supreme Court very strongly relied upon by learned Counsel for the cross-objector with emphasis on paragraph 23 reading as under: "23. From the examination of these judgments and the provisions of Section 41 of the Act and Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code, in our view, the following principles emerge: (1) Appeal is a substantive right. It is a creation of the statute. Right to appeal does not exist unless it is specifically conferred. (2) Cross-objection is like an appeal. It has all the trappings of an appeal. It is filed in the form of memorandum and the provisions of Rule 1 of Order 41 of the Code, so far as these relate to the form and contents of the memorandum of appeal apply to cross-objection as well. (3) Court fee is payable on cross-objection like that on the memorandum of appeal. It is filed in the form of memorandum and the provisions of Rule 1 of Order 41 of the Code, so far as these relate to the form and contents of the memorandum of appeal apply to cross-objection as well. (3) Court fee is payable on cross-objection like that on the memorandum of appeal. Provisions relating to appeals by an indigent person also apply to cross-objection. (4) Even where the appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, cross-objection may nevertheless be heard and determined. (5) The respondent even though he has not appealed may support the decree on any other ground but if he wants to modify it, he has to file cross-objection to the decree which objections he could have taken earlier by filing an appeal. Time for filing objection which is in the nature of appeal is extended by one month after service of notice on him of the day fixed for hearing the appeal. This time could also be extended by the Court like in appeal. (6) Cross-objection is nothing but an appeal, a cross-appeal at that. It may be that the respondent wanted to give a quietus to the whole litigation by his accepting the judgment and decree or order even if it was partly against his interest. When, however, the other party challenged the same by filing an appeal the statute gave the respondent a second chance to file an appeal by way of cross-objection if he still felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree or order." What we can immediately notice is the contents of paragraph 23 is nothing more than reaffirmation of contents of sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 41. 21. 21. In terms of the language of sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 41 a non-appealing party can seek for a modification or an improvement of a decree even by filing a cross-objection only in a situation where the cross-objection is by a defendant against whom a suit is decreed in part but an appeal is filed by a plaintiff who has tasted partial success to seek full success in the sense for a decree in its entirety in the suit or in the other situation where the appeal is by the defendant who has suffered a partial decree to get over that partial decree in such an event a non-appealing plaintiff to the extent he had been denied relief in the suit by granting a partial decree can also maintain a cross-objection to achieve a full decree, though he had himself not filed an appeal under Section 96. These are the only two situations wherein a cross-objection will enure to the benefit of a cross-objector for improving upon the decree. What can be noticed immediately is that it is only a partially successful plaintiff or defendant as a cross-objector who can seek to improve upon the decree in his favour when the other side wants to disprove the part decree which was in his favour before the Trial Court. If there was nothing at all in favour of the cross-objector and in an appeal by a successful defendant as in the instant case as the suit has been dismissed but who is in appeal as against the finding even when the suit is dismissed to contend that only the finding should be varied in his favour while maintaining the dismissal of the decree in such a suit a cross-objector cannot, in our considered view, maintain a cross-objection for the purpose of achieving a variation of the decree as could have been achieved under Section 96 CPC for getting the suit partially or fully decreed, which suit had been totally dismissed by the Trial Court. 22. In our understanding and on a close and detailed examination of the provisions of law and the judgments referred to above, we find that a totally non-suited plaintiff cannot by filing a cross-objection improve upon the decree of the Trial Court, to get a decree either in full or in part through a cross-objection. 23. 22. In our understanding and on a close and detailed examination of the provisions of law and the judgments referred to above, we find that a totally non-suited plaintiff cannot by filing a cross-objection improve upon the decree of the Trial Court, to get a decree either in full or in part through a cross-objection. 23. That cannot be achieved through a cross-objection but could have been achieved only by filing a regular appeal under Section 96 CPC. 24. The mere use of the words that a cross-objection is almost like an appeal, as observed in the Judgment of the Supreme Court, which are passing observations cannot by themselves be construed as the law declared, as such observation is only to illustrate the scope of a cross-objection to be like an appeal and not exactly an appeal under Section 96. 25. The use of the words 'like an appeal' in so far as it is possible to achieve in a cross-objection as could have been achieved in appeal are all expressions which are clearly indicative of the fact that a cross-objection is definitely not on par with an appeal under Section 96 CPC and what all can be and could have been achieved by filing an appeal under Section 96 definitely cannot be achieved by merely filing a cross-objection under sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 41. 26. In the instant case, on examination of merits we find the cross-objection while is not tenable on a principle of law as discussed above is also not tenable on facts, not worthy of admission for examination in as much as it is not directed against the finding on issue No.3 which is sought to be achieved by filing the appeal. Therefore, even on facts the cross-objection is not tenable. 27. At any rate on the merits of the contention also we cannot permit this to happen, as, if any finding is to be recorded in favour of the cross-objector but that still cannot be translated into relief in favour of the cross-objectors, for the reversal of the decree, more particularly when the cross-objection is a non-suited plaintiff and that will be an exercise in futility. Courts do not indulge in nor function for futile exercises! 28. Therefore, the cross-objection is not admitted but rejected before admission in terms of the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 41. 29. Courts do not indulge in nor function for futile exercises! 28. Therefore, the cross-objection is not admitted but rejected before admission in terms of the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 41. 29. Miscellaneous Civil No. 102828/2010 is dismissed as not pressed. Cross-objection rejected.