JUDGMENT

Daniels, J. - This is a suit by one Binda to set aside a decree passed against himself and his brother Girwar, on the ground that he was not properly represented in that suit. The suit was filed by the elder brother Girwar on his own behalf and as next friend of the present plaintiff Binda, who was alleged to be a minor. It now turns out that Binda attained majority one month before the suit was filed. It appears that Binda and his brother have a common interest, and it is further found by the Court below that Binda came to Court with Girwar and assisted to look after the suit. Under these circumstances, the Courts below, following the ruling in Ganga Ram v. Mihin Lal (1906) 28 All 416, have held that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the decree set aside.

2. The case relied on was a case in which a defendant was impleaded as a minor under the guardianship of his mother. He and his mother jointly defended the suit, and at no period did he raise the objection that he was not a minor when it was instituted. This Court held that it was not competent for the defendant to sue subsequently to have the decree declared not binding on the ground that he was in fact of full age whe