Innes, J.

1. The appeal is concerned only with the lands Nos. 1 and 2. As to these, the plaintiff claimed them as having been purchased by his illam in 1852. He said that the illam was in possession till 1878, when he was dispossessed in execution of the decree in Original Suit 656 of 1876, a suit against his elder brother, to which he was not a party.

2. The District Munsif decreed as to portions of these numbers for plaintiff. On appeal to the District Court, that Court held that plaintiff was bound by the decree in Suit 653 of 1876 against his elder brother, and dismissed plaintiffs suit.

3. On appeal to the High Court, that Court (KERNAN and Forbes, JJ. held that plaintiff was not bound by that former decree, as he was no party to it, and remanded the suit for re-trial.

4. The District Munsif on re-trial has dismissed plaintiffs suit as to Nos. 1 and 2. On appeal, the District Judge has found that the former decision in the suit of 1876 was wrong on the merits, and has held plaintiff entitled to recover the two plots Nos. 1 and 2. He finds that they were in fact sold by defendants illam to plaintiffs illam in 1852. He takes occasion, however, in his judgment to point out to