1. The appellants are defendants 7 and 9 to 11 in a suit for partition. The suit was instituted in the name of a person described as an idiot by her sister claiming to be next friend. The appellants contended that the person described as an idiot was not an idiot, but only a dumb person. Both the courts proceeded on the assumption that the appellants did not specifically dispute the claim of the next friend that the suit was being instituted in the name of a person who was an idiot, and so allowed the next friend to act as such. The suit was decreed by both the courts.

2. Shri. P. N. K. Achen, appearing for the appellants, submits that the plaint should not have been accepted and numbered by the trial court except after satisfying itself as to the claim of the next friend in accordance with the provisions of 0.32 R.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Secondly Shri. Achen points out that the specific issue on the point ought to have been raised and tried even if the court bad satisfied itself by means of an enquiry as to the claim of the next friend. This is because the defendants bad questioned the claim of the next friend to institute the suit under 0.32.

3. The pri