1. ' This is a second appeal filed by the defendants-appellants against the decision of the District Judge, Mazaffarabad dated 16-12-1979, whereby the decision of the trial Court dated 30-1-1977 was upheld. Plaintiff Abdur Rashid a minor through his mother brought a suit for cancellation of a decree dated 31-7-1973 made by the Court of Sub-Judge, Hattian. The land in suit was gifted away to the plaintiff-respondent by his grandfather named Mehna as father of the former died during the lifetime of his father, i,e, the grandfather of the plaintiff-respondent. This gift was challenged by the appellants during the trial of which a compromise was effected for the land in suit between the donor and the appellants resulting in reduction of some of the land from the entire land gifted away. Abdur Rashid donee then had to file the instant suit on various grounds for cancellation of the decree obtained by the appellants on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the donor and the appellants.
2. ' The Sub-Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent against which decree of the Sub-Judge on appeal was preferred to the Court of District Judge, Muzaffarabad where the appeal was also dismissed.
3. ' The counsel for the parties were beard and the perusal of the record was also made.
4. ' After going through the impugned decision of the District Judge, I feel not to go into the merits of the case so as to decide the points in issue factual as well as legal, one way or the other because the so-called judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court are going to be set aside on a very short ground. The decision of the District Judge on its very reading cannot be termed as a judgment. A decision given by a Court to be called as a judgment must be based on reasons and when it is short of reasons, cannot be termed as a judgment. The District Judge has agreed with the decision of the trial Court but no reasons were assigned to his agreement with the decision of the trial Court. Simply to say without any reasons that the Presiding Officer of the appellate Court agrees with the findings of the trial Court on a number of issues framed by the latter is not proper determination of the issues. There is the appreciation of the evidence of the parties brought on record by the District Judge and as a matter of fact and law both, no finding was given by him on any of the issues.
5. ' That being so, the impugned decision not being a judgment in the eye-of law, is hereby set aside and consequently the impugned decree also stands reversed. Thus by acceptance of this appeal, the appeal to the lower Appellate Court is remanded to it for its rehearing and disposal according to law. . Case remanded.