The appointment of a guardian for the suit of a minor whose interest is adverse to that of the minor is a nullity, and the decree based on such representation is also a nullity.

1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The suit is for declaration of the plaintiffs title to the plaint properties and for recovery of possession of the same with mesne profits. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule properties belong to him. They were purchased in his name, while he was a minor, by his paternal grand-father. Ext. A dated 15.8.1103 is the sale deed. It is alleged that the consideration for the sale deed was advanced by the maternal grand-father of the plaintiff. The properties were at that time outstanding on a mortgage. The mortgage right also was subsequently taken assignment of in the name of the plaintiff. On 18.2.1104 the plaintiff's father and paternal grand-father together executed a hypothecation bond, Ext. B, in respect of the plaint properties in favour of the father of defendants 2 to 8 stating that the properties belonged to them and that they have been acquired with their own funds in the name of the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that the executants of Ext. B had no right in the properties and that they were not competent to hypothecate the same. On the basis of the hypothecation bond, the father of defendants 1 to 6 instituted O.S. No. 166 of 1105 of the Quilon District Court and obtained a decree. In execution of the decree the plaint properties were sold in auction of 6.3.1111 and purchased by the decree-holder. Ext. I is the sale certificate. He obtained delivery of possession of the properties through court on 20.3.1112. Ext. IV is the delivery kychit. The plaintiff was impleaded as third defendant in O.S. No. 166 of 1105. His paternal grand-father was the first defendant and father the second defendant. Father was his guardian for the suit. It is alleged that his father did not accept the guardianship, that he was not a proper guardian for the suit, that he did not contest the suit on his behalf, that he (plaintiff) was not legally represented in the suit and that the decree and execution proceedings are null and void so far as he is concerned. It is also alleged that the plaintiff was under the guardianship of his maternal grand-father. Plaintiff brought the suit for a declaration of his title to the plaint properties and for recovery of possession of the same with mesne profits at the rate of 150 paras of paddy per year and also for a declaration that the hypothecation bond dated 18.2.1104 is not valid and binding on the plaintiff and that the decree and execution proceedings in O.S. No. 166 of 1105 are null and void so far as he is concerned. The decree-holder-auction-purchaser in O.S. No.166 of 1105 is dead, and his legal representatives are defendants 1 to 8. The 9th defendant is the father of the plaintiff.

2. Defendants 1 and 2 alone contested the suit. They contended as follows: The plaint schedule properties were purchased in the name of the plaintiff benami for the plaintiff's father and paternal grand-father and the properties really belonged to them. They were, therefore, competent to hypothecate the properties in favour of the father of defendants 1 to 8. Plaintiff had no right to the properties. The decree and execution proceedings in O. S. No. 166 of 1105 are valid and are not liable to be set aside. The suit is barred by res judicata and by limitation. The mesne profits of the properties would not be more than 115 paras of paddy per annum. Defendants 1 to 8 were only the trustees of their father and they are, therefore, not personally liable for any of the reliefs claimed in the plaint.

3. The court below held that the sale deed, Ext. A, was taken for the benefit of the plaintiff, that it was not taken in his name benami for his father and grand-father, and that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the plaint properties. It was, therefore, held that the plaintiff's father and paternal grand-father were not competent to execute the hypothecation bond. Ext. B, in favour of the father of defendants 1 to 8. It was also held that the plaintiff was not lega