Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.

1. Defendants 2 and 5, who are appellants in the lower Court are interested in this appeal. The plaintiffs action was for the recovery of possession of certain properties which he claimed to have succeeded to on the death of a qualified owner on the ground that he was the nearest reversioner when the succession opened. Defendants 2 and 5 were interested only in a single item of property in the schedule item 1. The appellate Court has granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. It is said that defendants 2 and 5 did not know of the date of the hearing and in any case were not in a position to adduce evidence. It would appear that they afterwards applied to the trial Court for setting aside the decree pissed against them and for being allowed to adduce such evidence as they had with regard to the issues in which they were interested; but that application was rejected. On appeal the District Judge has written a judgment which I cannot help characterizing extremely unsatisfactory and altogether slipshod. It does not satisfy the requirements of a judgment as laid down in the Civil P.C. The points for determination are not set out, the decision of the Court