JUDGMENT

1. This is art appeal by the minor defendants Nos. 1 and 5.

2. The facts briefly are these. A suit for sale was brought by one Lala Bithal Das against the mortgagors, and two persons, Baidy Ram and Munni, as subsequent transferees When Baidy Ram died, his sons Ram Kishen and Lachman, the present appellants, were brought on the record. The plaintiff applied that Chunna Ram, the paternal uncle of the minors, Ram Kishen and Lachman, should be appointed their guardian for the suit.

3. A notice was issued to Chunna Ram to state to the Court whether he was willing to accept the appointment or not, and he was to appear on the 15th August, 1927. The notice was served on Chunna Ram on the 5th August, 1927, but he did not appear on the 15th August, 1927. On the latter crate, the Court directed that the case should proceed ex parte against the minors, Ram Kishen and Lachman. There is no formal order appointing Chunna Ram as the guardian for the suit of the minor defendants.

4. On the 15th August, 1927, it was reported to the Court that the original plaintiff, Bithal Das, had died leaving a will, and it would require some time to bring his legal representatives on the record The learned J