1. Both Courts have found that the property sued for was not set apart to 2nd defendant's branch for maintenance The Subordinate Judge's judgment on this point is very short. We understand him to accept the reasons given by the District Munsif. With regard to the Munsif's judgment, two points have been raised, viz., that he has really not written a proper judgment in accordance with the requirements of law, and, secondly, he regarded the judgments in the previous Suits Nos. 90 of 1896 and 276 of 1905 as evidence in this case. With regard to the second point, we are prepared to assume, for the purpose of this decision, that the previous judgments were not legally admissible in evidence. The Munsif says that the evidence adduced in the previous case and that adduced in the present suit are the same, with the exception that certain additional witnesses were examined in this suit. He then refers to the conclusions that he came to in the previous suit, the evidence being the same. He says that he is not able to arrive at a different conclusion from what he had found in the previous suit. The effect of this is, in our opinion, that he adopts the reasons which he himself had given in the previous judgment. These reasons were based on evidence which was adduced in the previous case, which was the same as the evidence in this case. He, therefore, comes to the same conclusion in this case as he did on the evidence in the previous case. This, we think, does not amount to using the conclusions arrived at in the previous case as evidence in this case. If, as we understand the judgment, he adopted the reasons given in the judgment in the former case, those reasons are practically incorporated in his judgment in this suit, and it cannot, therefore, be said that the judgment is not in accordance with the requirements of the law in that it does not fully state the reasons for his conclusion. We, therefore, think that both these objections must fail. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.