S.K. CHATTOPADHYAYA, J:- This Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants appellants challenging the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below. While admitting this appeal the following- substantial question of law was formulated:

"Whether it was incumbent upon the court below the hold enquiry under Order 32 Rule 14 in view of pleading of the parties and whether the judgments and the decrees are bad in law on account of non-compliance of the said provision."

2. In spite of valid service of notice Respondent No.1 did not put her appearance and Respondent nos. 2 to 6 being minors are represented by D. R. Guardian.

3. The facts' of the case lie in narrow compass Most. Bhuneshwari Kuer and others filed title suit no. 229 of 1962 for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property. Plaintiff no. 2 Babu Paras Nath Singh, is her son who has been represented by his mother as his guardian and well wisher on the ground that he is off his head.

4. The defendants in their written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs, inter alia, have specifically stated in paragraphs 5 that " the suit is bad for defect of parties. The plaintiff no. 2 is major and i