JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. 1. Defendants are the appellants against a reversing judgment. 2. Since the appeal is to be disposed of on a short point, the facts need not be recounted in detail. Suffice it to say that Budi Raghunath Patro, predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1(a) to 1(d) and respondent nos.2 to 4 as plaintiffs, instituted the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Defendants entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The suit was dismissed. Since some of the findings of the learned trial court are against the defendants, they filed Title Appeal No.24 of 1984 before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Aska. The same was allowed in part. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard Mr. Baibaswata Panigrahi, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate for the defendants-appellants. None appears for the respondents. 4. Mr. Panigrahi, learned advocate for the appellants submits that since the learned trial court has rendered some of the findings against the defendants, the latter has filed an appeal before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge. The appeal having been allowed in part, the present second appeal has been filed. 5. In Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and others, AIR 1974 SC 1126 , the apex Court held that a suit for its maintainability requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit. But the position in regard to appeals is quite the opposite. The right of appeal inheres in no one and therefore an appeal for its maintainability must have the clear authority of law. That explains why the right of appeal is described as a creature of statute. Under Sec.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 authorised to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court. It further held that no appeal can lie against a mere finding for the simple reason that the Code does not provide for any such appeal. 6. The suit was dismissed. No appeal lies against the findings rendered against the defendants. Thus Title Appeal No. 24 of 1984 filed by the defendants before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge is not maintainable. 7. 6. The suit was dismissed. No appeal lies against the findings rendered against the defendants. Thus Title Appeal No. 24 of 1984 filed by the defendants before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge is not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.