A decree obtained on a plaint which wrongly described the plaintiff as a major, but who was actually a minor at the time of the suit, is not void if the plaintiff had attained majority prior to the date of the decree.

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 majority about one year prior to the date of the decree. In such a situation it cannot be said that the decree is one passed against a minor. Law is well settled that a decree against a minor will be void and of no legal effect. To attract this rule, the decree must have been passed against a minor. The rule is not that any decree passed in a suit commenced against a minor without a lawful guardian to represent him will be void. To commence a suit without such a guardian will only be an irregularity which could be cured at any stage prior to the decree. If a proper guardian is appointed before that date and the decree is passed after notice to the guardian, it will be a valid decree and will be in force until set aside in other appropriate proceedings. The same is the effect when the decree is passed after the minor wrongly described as a major, has really attained majority prior to the date of the decree. In such a case it will not be a decree passed against a minor so as to render it void. It may be a decree passed against that person without notice as a major. The remedy will then be to have it set aside as an ex-parte decree or by means of a fresh suit. This plaintiff tried to the first course and failed and in view of that order he cannot now come forward with a fresh suit contending that the decree is void. The position stated above gains support from the decisions reported in A.I.R. 1919 Lahore 135 and 1934 Lahore 274.

3. In the present case there is still another circumstance against this plaintiff. The decree Ext. II is the final decree in force and it has superseded Ext. I decree. When the appeal to the High Court was filed the present plaintiff was really a major and as a major respondent, notice had been served upon him. Thus there has been no defect about that decree and it cannot be ignored as a nullity. Thus in any view of the matter, plaintiff's present suit has to fail.

4. In the result the decree of the lower appellate court is confirmed and this second appeal is dismissed with costs.

Dismissed.