1. The plaintiff in O.S. 107 of 1954 on the file of the Alleppey Munsiffs Court is the Revision Petitioner in both the C.R.Ps. The suit was for redemption of a mortgage and for recovery of the property. The mortgage was executed by the plaintiffs karnavan in favour of the ancestor of the defendants in the suit. The 1st defendant is the mother and defendants 2 to 5 are her children. The 5th defendant was a minor and is still one. The plaintiff applied for appointment of the 1st defendant as the guardian of her daughter the 5th defendant. Since notice of that petition was returned with the endorsement that the 1st defendant refused to accept the notice one Kunju Thampi was appointed as the guardian. The affidavit in support of the application for appointment of Thampi as guardian does not indicate how he was qualified to be the guardian of the minor or that he has any interest in the minor. While the suit was hotly contested by defendants 1 to 4 the guardian of the defendant remained ex parte. After a full trial the plaintiff was given a decree for redemption in the year 1955. Defendants appealed against the decree to the District Court as

well as the High Court and both the courts after due consideration confirmed the decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. In both the appeals the 5th defendant (minor) was represented by the mother the 1st defendant as the guardian. The District Court decree was in the year 1958 and the High Court decree is dated 21-2 -1958.

2. When the plaintiff applied for execution of the decree and the case was posted for delivery of the property, the respondent in this appeal one P.K. Padmanabhan of Kaduvathuseril claiming to be the guardian of the 5th defendant filed two petitions before the trial court, one for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against the minor 5th defendant and the other for removing Kunju Thampi from guardianship and to appoint him instead. In support of the latter application it is alleged that Kunju Thampi the guardian-ad-litem appointed by the trial court was the plaintiff's brother and was purposely appointed as the guardian of the minor. It was further alleged that the applicant is the uncle of the minor and is looking after his education. In the affidavit filed in support of the application to set aside the ex parte decree it was also alleged that the guardian on record had colluded with the plaintiff and was acting against the interests of the minor in the suit. It is stated that vast improvements were effected in the property by the ancestor of the minors and the minor was also entitled to the value of those improvements. Both these applications were strongly opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the petitions were not maintainable as the trial court decree had ultimately merged in the decree of the High Court and that decree was binding on the minor as he was properly represented by his mother the 1st defendant as guardian who filed the appeal oh her own behalf as well as on behalf of her minor son in both the courts and prosecuted them properly. The learned Munsiff upheld the objections and dismissed both the applications.

3. This order was taken in appeal and the Sub-Judge reversed the order holding that the trial court decree could be held to have been merged in the High Court decree only if a decree with proper representation of the minor was passed, and in this case the decree of both the appellate courts are to be treated as void because there was no order removing the guardian-ad-litem appointed by the trial court and the 1st defendant had only voluntarily taken up the guardianship. It was also held that the respondent was competent to apply to get himself appointed as guardian on appropriate grounds and to have the ex parte decree set aside if the guardian-ad-litem had been negligent in the conduct of the case. As there was no evidence to find that the guardian-ad-litem Kunju Thampi was duly removed on the application of the 1st defe