( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for possession and for recovery of damages in respect of house property described in the plaint. The appeal came before us on reference by a learned Single Judge.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs case was that one Ram Das filed suit No. 354 of 1939 against one Ram Lal for recovery of money. The suit was decreed ex parte and in due course a 3/4th share in the house in question was sold and purchased by the plaintiff-appellant on 21-1-1941. On 15-5-1941 there was Dakhaldihani by which possession was obtained by the plaintiff-appellant. Despite, however, the purchase and possession by the plaintiff-appellant of the property in question Ram lal, Judgment-debtor was allowed to remain in the house. On 19-9-1945 Ram Lal died, whereupon it is alleged that respondent No. 1, His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur took forcible possession of the house and granted a lease in respect of the same in favour of Tulsi Ram, defendant-respondent No. 2 in the appeal. Accordingly the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff-appellant on 21-1-1946.

( 3 ) A variety of defences were taken on behalf of the defendants-respondents to the suit. One of these defences was that having regard to the provisions of Section 86 of C. P. C. no permission of the Government having been obtained for the suit against the Maharaja, the suit was incompetent. This matter was not, however, gone into and no finding was recorded on it and we are not, therefore, concerned with this plea. The main pleas upon which the trial of the suit proceeded were that Ram Lal was of unsound mind since several years prior to the date of the said suit against him by Ram Das and continued to be of unsound mind until that suit was decided. No guardian ad litem was appointed for Ram Lal in that suit and having regard to the provisions under Order 32 of C. P. C. the decree, obtained against Ram Lal in these circumstances, was null and void and of no effect at all. It Was further pleaded that the decree in suit No. 354 of 1939 being null and void the auction sale which followed upon the decree was also of no legal effect and accordingly in these circumstances the plaintiff-appellant acquired no title at all.

( 4 ) THESE pleas formed the subject-matter of issues before the courts below and the two courts recorded concurrent findings on these questions, The findings were to the effect that Ram Lal was of unsound mind, that no guardian ad litem was appointed for Ram Lal and accordingly the decree in suit No. 354 of 1939 was null and void and the auction sale held in pursuance of that decree was of no legal effect and the plaintiff-appellant acquired no title by reason of that auction sale. Upon these findings no other question was gone into and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed and the dismissal of the suit by the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court.

( 5 ) IN second appeal before this Court it has not been contended at all seriously that the decree in these circumstances obtained against Ram Lal was not null and void or was not a nullity. In view of the decisions of this Court that position could not be taken up by the plaintiff-appellant. Reference may be made to certain decisions reported in Nathumal v. Mohd. Nazir Beg, AIR 1955 All 584, Radha Kishan v. Ram Nazar Cooperative Society, AIR 1951 All 341 (FB) and inderpal Singh v. Sarnam Singh, AIR 1951 All 823. It is sufficient to state the law as laid down by this Court in the last mentioned case, in the following words at page 824 of the report:

"the case law is thus quite clear that a decree against a minor is void ab initio and a nullity, if it is passed in a suit in which no guardian of the minor is appointed. . . . . . . . . . . . "

( 6 ) THE position regarding a decree against a person of unsound mind is the same as that against minor.

( 7 ) IT follows that upon the finding of fact recorded by the courts below the plaintiff-appellant ha