Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (July 15, 1913) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Patna.

The suit was instituted by the appellant to recover possession of his share in two mauzas as heir to his grandfather.

The facts and the effect of the decisions in India appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

1917. Oct. 18, 19. De Gruyther, K.C., and Dube, for the appellant. Neither the compromise nor the subsequent award and decree are binding upon the appellant. There were no proper proceedings under the Bengal Minors Act (XL. of 1859) appointing the appellants father as his guardian. It cannot be supposed that the Court allowed the father to represent him under the proviso to s. 3, since the interest of the appellant conflicted with that of his father. In any case the appellant as reversioner had no interest which could be affected by the compromise or the relinquishment of the property Sham Sunder Lal v. Acham. (( 1898) L. R. 25 I. A. 183.) The decision in Walian v. Banke Behari Prasad Singh (( 1903) L. R. 30 I. A. 183.), relied upon by the High Court, is distinguishable. There the minors mother repre sented him in the transaction, and his int