Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The plaintiff, represented by his certificated guardian (appointed by the District Court), is the appellant before us. He sued to set aside the decree passed against him in a suit brought by the present 1st defendant as plaintiff on a mortgage-bond executed by the plaintiffs mother. The short question for decision is, whether the plaintiff was properly and legally represented in that suit. An officer of the Court was appointed in that suit at the instance of the then plaintiff (present 1st defendant) as guardian (for the suit) of the minor defendant (present plaintiff). If there was no proper representation, if the representation by that officer was not merely irregular but also illegal, there can be no doubt that this suit to set aside the decree and the other proceedings in the former suit is sustainable. The lower Courts held that, because the Court and the present 1st defendant (the then plaintiff) were not aware that a guardian had been appointed by the District Court for the minor, the appointment of an officer of the Court as the guardian for the former suit was neither illegal nor irregular and, therefore, the decree in the former suit should no