( 1 ) THE appellants are plaintiffs, the respondents are defendants. The suit is for a declaration that the decree obtained by the 1st defendant in OS. 323/47-48 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Tiptur, is void and not binding on the plaintiffs, for recovery of possession of the schedule property and also to declare that the execution proceedings in Ex. No. 691/50-51 on the file of the Munsiff, Tunkur and the sale held thereon do not bind the the plaintiffs and for mesne profits from the date of suit. The 1st defendant had filed OS. 323/47-48 against the plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 1,000 and interest thereon due on a prcnote executed by Siddananjappa, the father of the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff was a minor, the second plaintiff, mother of the 1st plaintiff was the proposed guardian of the 1st plaintiff. The plaintiffs alleged that the 1st defendant managed to, see that endorsements of refusal were written both in the summons and in the notices issued on the application for appointment of a guardian, and thereafter he got the second defendant appointed as Court guardian, to conduct the pro,ceiedings on behalf of the 1st plaintiff and obtained a decree against the pla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document