Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Teunon, by whom it has been held that the lower Courts have erroneously regarded certain judgments and decrees as constituting res judicata. At the same time he felt that he must affirm the decree of the lower Appellate Court, on the ground that the wakfnama to which the decree related, was not before him and that he had no means to form an opinion as to whether or not it was a void and invalid wakf as the Court had decided in a previous litigation.
2. We are in the same predicament. But there is another aspect of the case by which we are influenced and it is this. From the judgment of the Munsif, it appears that the validity or invalidity of the wakf was a matter that came before the High Court and was a subject of adjudication in the High Court. We have been told in the course of the argument that the invalidity of the wakf was affirmed on legal grounds. The result then is that there is an adjudication by the High Court on the invalidity of the wakf which is based on legal grounds, and ordinarily we should feel bound, not on the principle of res judicata but out of the deference which is due to a previous decision of the High Court, to follow that authority. Before finally deciding the case on that ground, we give the appellant before us an opportunity of producing the judgment of the High Court before us within a month from this date. If he fails to do so, this appeal will stand dismissed, but without any order as to costs.