The substantial point in this second appeal is whether the decree in O.S. No. 386 of 1953 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore is vitiated and a nullity as against the plaintiff for want of proper and effective representation therein of the plaintiff who was a minor during its pendency. The plaintiff who seeks to have the decree against him set aside contends that, when his father as his natural guardian was available and in every way interested in his welfare as his only son, his paternal grandfather was appointed as guardian and the gross negligence of this guardian in the conduct of the suit resulted in a decree being passed against him.

First the relevant facts of the case may be set out briefly. The properties in dispute in this suit belonged to one Palaniswami Goundan. He settled the suit properties on his grand-daughter, the second defendant in the suit and one Muthuswami who had been proposed as her husband, both of them minors, under the settlement deed dated 13th May, 1936, conferring absolute rights in the properties on the second defendant and her proposed husband. The second defendant was represented for the settlement by her mother Valliammal as guardian