A party cannot appeal a decree that grants it complete success.

The plaintiff sued for permanent and alternative mandatory injunction concerning land allegedly exchanged with the defendants’ father.

The defendants denied a formal exchange and alleged that the plaintiff had encroached on land intended as a common passage.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff had not proved the alleged interference and was in unauthorised possession of part of the defendants’ land.

The defendants’ appeal was dismissed as not maintainable because the decree was in their favour.

They then filed this second appeal, relying, among other things, on a compromise entered into during the suit that they said had not been implemented.

Whether the defendants, in whose favour the Trial Court had dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, were persons aggrieved entitled to appeal against that decree

Whether the findings of the Courts below resulted from a complete misreading or misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record, as raised in the substantial question of law

An appeal lies at the instance of a person aggrieved by the decree, not merely by a finding in the judgment.

A party that has obtained the relief sought—or, as here, a decree in its favour—cannot appeal simply because it disagrees with a finding; Banarsi v. Ram Phal states that appeals and cross-objections are directed against decrees, not findings.

The Court also relied on Nalakath Sainuddin v. Koorikadan Sulaiman for the principle that an aggrieved party is one adversely affected by the operative decision, and Baldev Singh v. Surinder Mohan Sharma for the requirement that an appellant be aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree.

A defendant seeking an affirmative decree for possession must pursue an appropriate remedy; without a counterclaim, the compromise did not itself entitle the defendants to obtain such a decree in this appeal.

The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, so the resulting decree was in the defendants’ favour.

Any adverse finding about the plaintiff’s possession did not make the defendants aggrieved by the operative decree.

The defendants’ reliance on the unimplemented compromise did not change that position: they had filed no counterclaim, and could not use an appeal from a decree favourable to them to secure an affirmative decree for possession.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the Appellate Court’s conclusion that the defendants’ appeal was not maintainable, and answered the substantial question of law accordingly.

It answered the substantial question of law against the appellants, dismissed the second appeal with costs of ₹10,000, and disposed of any pending applications.