Representation by a guardian with adverse interest is no representation at all, and a decree against a minor properly represented cannot be set aside without proof of fraud or collusion by the guardian.

Odgers, J.

1. This was a suit shortly for a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 156 of 1915 on the file of the Sub Court of Coimbatore is not binding on the plaintiffs in this suit. The Lower Appellate Court has found that the decree is not binding on the ground that the minor plaintiffs were not properly represented in that suit by their father as guardian ad litem, as the interest of the latter was adverse to theirs. I think the lower appellate Court further intended in para. 21 of the judgment to find that the guardian did not raise the proper defences to the suit on the minors behalf thus imputing negligence to him in the conduct of the suit. The appeal is by the 1st defendant as purchaser in 1918 from the decree-holder in O.S. No. 156 of 1915 and the plaintiffs are the sons of the 2nd defendant. The suit O.S. No. 156 of 1915 was in respect of a mortgage, (Ex. C.) and the money, advanced was utilised for the purchase of new lands - this is admitted. The suit was brought in 1915 and the final decree (Ex. E) was passed in February 1917. It was against the father and his minor sons (inter alia) and directed sale of the property and if necessary a personal decree against the father, the 1st defendant in that suit. The written statement of the 1st defendant (Ex. B.) settled by his Vakil N. Ramaswami Iyer - alleged discharge and points as to payment of interest. The point made against defendant No. 1 is that he ought to have pleaded that the mortgage was not binding on the minors - not being for an antecedent debt. Leading up to the appointment of the father as guardian we have (Ex. F.) the plaintiffs affidavit asking for the appointment of himself and stating that he had no interest adverse to that of his minor sons. Lie was duly appointed by the Court. On 19th December 1915 the defendant on behalf of himself, and his minor sons, appointed vakil, N. Ramaswami Iyer to appear for him. The present suit was filed on 5th July 1918, by the minors through their mother, none of them having yet attained majority. Mr. A. Krishnaswami Iyers first point for the appellant is that there was no disability on the part of the father and that, even if he was not a proper person to be appointed on the ground of interest, his appointment was a mere irregularity. Some of the cases cited for appellant turn on the distinction as to whether the proceedings against minors where their guardians interest is adverse are mere nullities or only voidable. (See per Sadasiva Iyer, J., in Appeals No. 347 and 348 of 1919 (unreported) and Kuppuswami Iyengar v. Kamalammal (1920) I.L.R. 43 M. 842, Mannu Lal v. Ghulam Abbas (1910) I.L.R. 32 All. 287 (P.C.). This distinction is without importance in the present case.

2. In S.A. No. 407 of 1919 to which my learned brother was a party it was held on the facts that there was no divergence of interest and in S.A. No. 1092 of 1918 to which he was also a party, it was held relying on Rashid-un-nisa v. Muhammad Ismail Khan (1909) I.L.R. 31 All. 572 (P.C.), that representation by a guardian whose interest is adverse is no representation at all. It is true that the Privy Council in Walian v Banke Behari Pershad Singh (1903) I.L.R. 30 C. 1021 at p. 1032 decided that defects in procedure are mere irregularities, in that case there was no formal order of appointment and neither the minors nor their mother were served with notice and in Mannu Lal v. Ghulam Abbas (1910) I.L.R. 32 All. 287 (P.C.) the absence of an affidavit was held not sufficient to render the proceedings illegal and void. In Beni Prasad v. Lajja Ram (1916) I.L.R. 38 All. 452 it was held that a decree against the minor properly represented cannot be set aside save on proof of fraud or collusion by the guardian. See also Raghubar Dyal Sahu v. Bhikya Lal Messer (1885) I.L.R. 12 C. 69. Here in my opinion we have much more than a mere irregularity. It was improper and in fact illegal to appoint the father guardian at all...cf. Murlidhar v. Pitambar Lal (1922