JUDGMENT

Mitter, J. - In appeal it has been contended before us that the decision of the District Judge is wrong on both the points which he has decided. But before we enter upon the question thus raised before us on behalf of the plaintiff, it may be as well to notice here several objections of law to the maintenance of the suit taken before us on behalf of the respondent.

2. The first contention is, that the order of the District Judge, directing the Collector, u/s 12 of Act XL of 1858, to take charge of the property of the minor, is wrong; and that, therefore, the present suit having been brought by a manager, on behalf of the minor, appointed by the Collector, has not been properly framed. The objection is based upon the ground that the interest of a minor in a joint family estate under the Mitakshara law is not such property as can be taken charge of by a manager appointed under the provisions of Act XL of 1858. This proposition is correct, as is shown by authorities which have been cited before us.

3. But, nevertheless, we do not think that this objection to the suit can prevail. In the first place, conceding that the order of the District Judge u/s 12 of Act XL of 1858 was erro