JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff in effect sought to set aside a decree which had been-obtained by Debi Prasad. Debi Prasad's suit was based on the following allegations. He said that Lajja Ram owed a debt to one Ram Singh, that a creditor of Ram Singh had attached this debt and' sold it in execution of a decree obtained against Ram Singh and that he (Debi Prasad) was the auction-purchaser of the debt. At thetime that Beni Prasad brought his suit Lajja Ram was "technically" a minor. His mother had been appointed his guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act. On this account the attainment of majority by Lajja. Ram was postponed from the period of 18 years (according to Hindu Law) to the spjeial period of 21 years prescribed by the Guardians and Wards Act. Beni Prasad accordingly sued Lajja Ram through his certificated guardian who, at the time of the institution of the suit, was the defendant No. 2, one Tikait Narain. The allegation in the plaint in the present suit is that, Tikait Narain colluded with Beni Prasad and did not plead limitation, that if limitation had been pleaded it would have been found that the alleged debt due by Lajja Ram to Ra