1. Plaintiff whose suit was allowed by the trial court but was dismissed by the lower appellate court, has preferred this second appeal. His suit is for a declaration that the decree in O.S. 461/1108 on the file of

the Changanacherry Munsiff's Court is not binding on him and also for an injunction restraining the decree-holder from enforcing that decree as against him and his rights in the suit property. Of the several grounds urged against that decree all except the effect of his having been wrongly described as a major in the plaint, have been concurrently found against him. The questions thus concluded are questions of fact and hence they cannot be again allowed to be canvassed in second appeal.

2. The main point pressed in second appeal is that the decree in O.S. 461 of 1108 (Ext. I) is null and void for the reason that it was obtained on a plaint which wrongly described the present plaintiff as a major. This contention found favour with the first court while the appellate court took a different view on that question. It has been concurrently found that this plaintiff was really a minor on the date of that suit. Similarly it has also been found that he attained major