JUDGMENT : - This is a judgment-debtors Second Appeal. Two objections were raised to the execution of the decree: First that the appellant. Kedar Nath was a minor when the suit was instituted and decreed against him. His age given in the plaint was twenty years. Summons of the suit must have been served on him. He did not raise any objection to the effect that be was treated to be a man above eighteen years in the plaint and the suit proceeded and was decreed. His father was also a party to the suit. He also did not raise any objection to the effect that Kedar Nath was a minor, and a guardian ought to have been appointed for him. No objection having been taken to the age of Kedar Nath, as given in the plaint, and the suit having thereafter proceeded on the basis that he was an adult and decreed accordingly the raising of the question whether Kedar Nath was an adult or a minor in the execution proceedings was barred by the Rule of constructive res judicata. At any rate. the lower Appellate Court has, on an appraisal of the evidence on the record. Dis-believed Kedar Nath and held that he was an adult. It has not been suggested that the finding suffers from any error of law except for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document