( 1 ) SITTING singly, referred this Second Appeal to the Division Bench for disposal since, in his Lordships's opinion, there was a conflict of authorities upon the only question of law which called for his determination in this Appeal.

( 2 ) THE Second Appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Respondent, who are minors, for a declaration that the ex parte decree for rent obtained by the Appellants against them and their co-sharers, in R. S. No. 2006 of 1944, was not binding upon the Respondents inasmuch as the Respondents were, in that suit, impleaded as represented not by their mother who was their natural guardian, but by their brother, Gobinda alias Gobardhan, who was defendant No. 12 in the suit. It is now established by the findings of the Courts below that there was no adverse interest of defendant No. 12 against the minor defendants, though he did not contest the suit and also that the decree was not tainted by any fraud on the part of the Appellants or of defendant No. 12.

( 3 ) THE question of law which arises is whether the minors were, in the above circumstances, properly represented by their brother who was not their natural guardian, so as to make the