Cross-appeal requirement limits appellate relief: a respondent cannot secure enlarged specific performance without challenging the adverse decree.

In an appeal by one party, a respondent who has not filed a cross-appeal or cross-objection may support the decree to the extent it is favourable and may challenge adverse findings, but cannot obtain an enlarged relief adverse to the appellant. Order 41 Rule 33 CPC is discretionary and may be used to do complete justice or avoid inconsistent decrees, but not to revive a relief that has become final or to grant a separate severable relief that was not independently challenged. Where the decree granted only conditional specific performance, the respondent could not secure an absolute decree for specific performance in the appellant's appeal without filing a cross-appeal or cross-objection.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection by the respondent, the appellate court could modify a decree appealed against by the defendant-appellant and grant an absolute decree for specific performance in favour of the respondent under Order 41 Rules 22 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A respondent who has not appealed or filed cross-objection may support the decree to the extent it is in his favour and may challenge an adverse finding, but he cannot seek enlargement of the decree to his advantage or to the appellant's prejudice unless he has filed an appeal or cross-objection. The power under Order 41 Rule 33 is wide, but it is discretionary and is meant to prevent inconsistent or inequitable decrees and to do complete justice only in appropriate cases. It cannot be used to revive a relief that has become final against a party, or to grant a separate and severable relief that ought to have been independently appealed against or cross-objected to. The decree here granted only a conditional relief of specific performance, with the money decree operating first and specific performance arising only on default; the two reliefs were separable and the respondent, having not challenged the adverse part of the decree, could not obtain an unconditional decree for specific performance in the defendants' appeal.

Conclusion: The first appellate court had no jurisdiction to convert the conditional decree into an absolute decree for specific performance in favour of the respondent in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objection.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the first appellate court could not stand, and the trial court's decree was restored with consequential reliefs consistent with the appellants' payment of the monetary component.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal by one party, the appellate court may not grant to a non-appealing respondent a relief adverse to the appellant and beyond the decree in the respondent's favour unless the respondent has filed an appeal or cross-objection, save in exceptional cases where such interference is necessary to avoid inconsistent or inequitable decrees.

---