Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. This appeal raises an important question and has been fully argued by the counsel on both sides. The facts may be briefly stated. In the suit the plaintiff claimed an easement of necessity in respect of certain lands. At the defendants request, the District Munsif made a local inspection of the site. Then, after the plaintiff was examined-in-chief and some documents were filed, the parties requested the Court to give a decision on the evidence already on the record and intimated that they proposed to adduce no further evidence. A joint statement to that effect was filed and the decision in the case really turns upon the proper construction of that document. To resume the story, the Munsif gave his decision partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly against him. The plaintiff, dissatisfied with that judgment, appealed to the Subordinate Judge. He held that by reason of the joint statement to which I have referred, the plaintiff was debarred from filing the appeal. The plaintiff, whose appeal has thus been dismissed, questions the correctness of that view.

2. The proper test to apply is, whether the judgment in regard to which the question arises, has