Judgement

APPEAL from a decree of the High Court (April 23, 1881, and Sept. 9, 1881, in review) reversing a decree of the Judge of Bhagulpore (July 25, 1877) whereby the suit was dismissed.

The facts of the case appear in the judgment of their Lordships.

The main question was as to the rights in joint family estate, which, under Mitakshara law, accrue to a purchaser of the fathers right, title, and interest therein, sold in satisfaction of debts incurred by the father.

Doyne, and G. W. Arathoon, for the Appellant, contended that the manager who brought this suit on behalf of the infant Plaintiff had not been properly appointed by the Collector, and that an order in that behalf made by the District Judge was ultra vires under Act XL. of 1858. [Sir Richard Couch —The point has not been taken in the Courts below, and is purely formal. Sir Barnes

Law. Rep. 11 Ind. App. 26 ( 1883- 1884) Baboo Hurdey Narain Sahu v. Pundit Baboo Rooder

104

Peacock referred to sect 578 of Act X. of 1877]. There has been no waiver of the defence that it was necessary to see whether this suit was instituted by a person legally competent to do so and represent the minor. [Mayne-—He is at least guardian ad lit