The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to protect the interests of minors and the applicability of the provisions of Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure in safeguarding and protecting the interests of minors.

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-This Writ Petition involves the question about competence and fate of an appeal filed by defendants-appellants in which one of the appellants was a minor; but who was not represented by any guardian in the trial Court and was not even described as minor in the suit or in the appeal initially. The question arises on the facts and in the circumstances narrated in brief hereafter.

2. The petitioners Seva Ram, Gurdeva Ram and Mana Ram are sons of Kishan Singh alias Krishan Singh. The father of the petitioners Kishan Singh filed a suit under Section 88, 53 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act joining his brother Santa Singh, his sisters Pratap Kaur and Nihal Kaur and so also his sons, the present petitioners, as Defendants No. 1 to 6. The dispute relates to 26 bighas of land in Chak 1 DBL A that was allotted to Hari Singh, father of the plaintiff and grandfather of the petitioners. It was alleged in the plaint that the said Shri Hari Singh executed a Will on 07.07.1990, bequeathing the said land in equal share to the plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 i.e., the sons of the testator; that the said Will was revoked on 30.07.1990 and a fresh Will was executed wherein Hari Singh bequeathed 10 bighas of land to both his sons and remaining 16 bighas of land to his grand sons, Seva Ram, Gurdeva Ram and Mana Ram, the present petitioners; and that Hari Singh expired on 012.1992. The plaintiff Kishan Singh alleged the Defendant No. 1 Santa Singh was having rights over 5 bighas of land only but he was retaining possession over 8 bighas of land and it was claimed in the suit that the holdings be divided and separate possession be delivered to the parties concerned.

3. The Defendant No. 1 Santa Singh resisted the suit by filing written statement and so also a counter claim and inter alia, it was asserted that the property in question was an ancestral property having been allotted to Hari Singh in lieu of his ancestral property left in Pakistan at the time of partition and no Will could have executed in relation to the land in question. It appears that another written statement was filed on behalf of the present petitioners with counter claim, but the averments therein have not been clarified on record. Be that as it may, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh after considering evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the property in question was an ancestral property and no Will could have executed in relation thereto; that the Will dated 30.07.1990 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances; and that the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 were entitled to half share each in the property in dispute. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, by the Judgment and decree dated 20.01.1997 (Annexure-1) proceeded to declare the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 having equal shares in 26 bighas of land in question and directed the Tehsildar concerned to propose division with reference to the classification of land.

4. Against the Judgment and decree dated 20.01.1997 aforesaid passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh an appeal was submitted on 01.02.1997 to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh in the name of present petitioners Seva Ram, Gurdeva Ram and Mana Ram and the plaintiff Krishan Singh father of the appellants and so also the other defendants were joined as respondents.

.5. On 22.08.1997 an application was moved by the Counsel for the appellants stating that the Appellant No. 3 Mana Ram was a minor and inadvertently the appeal was filed by him; the father of the appellant was a respondent in the appeal and there was no other person for prosecuting the case on his behalf and, therefore, a guardian ad litem be appointed for protection of the interest of the minor. It was contended that in the trial Court, the suit was instituted and decided without appointment of guardian for the minor defendant, although the suit was filed by none other than the father of the minor Mana Ram; no question regardin