1. The first issue raised two questions, namely, whether there was an oral will and whether there was an absolute division by the widows. The original Munsif held in the plaintiffs favour on both the questions. Mr. Oldfield held against the will but in favour of the absolute partition. He reversed and remanded the case with instructions to the Munsif to try the question as to the date of the partition. The Munsif having decided in the plaintiffs favour, an appeal was again preferred to the District Court, which now came before Mr. Broadfoot. He held the will proved and dismissed the suit, We are of opinion that he was wrong in going back upon Mr. Oldfields decision against the will. The order of remand was based upon the decision that the will was not true, Though he held the partition was absolute, he would not dispose of the case finally as he wanted a further question to be decided as to whether it was before or after the Transfer of Property Act.

2. We think that Mr. Oldfields decision was binding on Mr. Broadfoot on both the points, namely, that the will was not true and that the partition was absolute. It is now contended that an oral partition by two co-widows, if abs