Person aggrieved under civil procedure can maintain a second appeal when reversal of a decree causes legal prejudice.

The right of appeal under Sections 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure extends beyond the original parties to a decree to any person whose legal rights are adversely affected by it. A litigant who has benefited from the trial court's decree and suffers legal injury when that decree is reversed is a person aggrieved. The distinction between challenging a mere finding and challenging an operative decree was recognised, and the post-amendment position under Order 41 Rule 22 supports the ability to assail adverse findings in appropriate cases. On these facts, the defendant who supported the plaintiff's case was prejudicially affected by reversal of the decree and could maintain the second appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Defendant No. 5, who supported the plaintiff's case and was prejudicially affected by reversal of the trial court's decree, was a person aggrieved entitled to maintain the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The right of appeal under Sections 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not confined to the original parties alone, but extends to a person whose legal rights are adversely affected by the decree. A party who suffers legal injury because a decree in his favour is overturned is a person aggrieved. The distinction between a challenge to a mere finding and a challenge to an operative decree was recognised, and the post-amendment position under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 also shows that adverse findings may be assailed in appropriate cases. On the facts, the appellant had derived benefit from the trial court decree and was prejudicially affected when that decree was set aside on appeal.

Conclusion: The appellant was a person aggrieved and the second appeal was maintainable in law.

---