The main legal point established in the judgment is that a minor who has attained majority can be granted leave to prosecute an appeal filed on their behalf, even if initially filed by a guardian.

Kinkhede—The suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Munsiff No. 2, Akola, on 14th July 1919, against the present appellant as defendant No. 3 and some other defendants, The plaint describes defendant No. 3 as a minor aged 14 and living under the guardianship of his grandmother Mt. Gangu, widow of Khandu Kunbi. She was duly appointed a guardian ad litem by an order dated 20th September 1919.

2. The plaintiffs' suit was dismissed by the first Court on 30th September 1920. They therefore on 16th November 1920 filed an appeal against the dismissal. The memorandum of appeal also described the defendant No. 3 as a minor represented by his guardian Gangu. After several adjournments the appeal was heard by Mr. Pathak, Additional District Judge, Akola, on 5th October 1921. The judgment, however, was not delivered until 26th November 1921. The appeal was allowed and the claim decreed against defendant No. 3. The decree of the appellate Court continues to describe defendant No. 3 as a minor represented by his guardian ad litem Mt. Gangu. As a matter of fact it is now admitted before me that Mt. Gangn was then dead, her death having taken place on 5th November 1921. Strictly speaking under Or. XXXII, r. 11(2), Civil P.C. where the guardian for the suit dies during the pendency of the suit it is prescribed that the Court shall appoint a new guardian in his place. Apparently the fact of the death of the guardian ad litem after the hearing of the appeal and before the judgment was actually delivered, was not brought to the notice of the Court of appeal by the appellants before it. I need not decide at this stage the question as to whether this omission to appoint a new guardian was a mere irregularity or made the decree a nullity as against the present appellant, because that is a question which deals with the merits of the case.

3. On 7th January 1922, one Ramchandra, a separated cousin of the appellant's father purporting to act as his guardian under the impression that he was still a minor gave power of attorney to Messrs. Khare and Rajwade with instructions to file the appeal against the decree of the lower appellate Court dated 16th November 1921. In the power of attorney as also in the memorandum of appeal the appellant's name is described as Dattu, son of Bhakiji Kunbi, a minor, by guardian Ramchandra Krishnaji Patel. It appears, nobody cared to take notice of the description of Dattu as given in the decree, where the name of Gangu was put down as guardian. A word of explanation was wanted in the memorandum of appeal as to why a person other than the guardian named in the decree was filing the appeal on behalf of the appellant Dattu. It is also noticeable that the fact of the appellant having attained majority on 12th December 1921 had not attracted the attention of anybody concerned with the filing of the appeal. In fact the appeal appears to have been filed under the impression that nothing happened after the hearing of the appeal in the Additional District Judge's Court, was concluded, and the case was adjourned for judgment, which called for any change in the description of the appellant. The right of appeal which vested in him was exercised for him and in his name by Ramchandra describing himself as his guardian, whereas he having attained majority was sui juris and stood in need of no guardian to act for him.

4. The very firsts hearing of the appeal in this Court was fixed for 19th March 1923 by an order dated 26th January 1922. The case was however adjourned on that day to 24th March 1924, and again adjourned to 29th July 1924, when it came before me for hearing. The appeal was adjourned twice on my file from 29th July 1924 to 18th August 1924 and then to 28th August 1924. On 28th August 1924 an application was made stating that certain documents were relevant to the decision of the case and should he allowed to be filed. It was incidentally mentioned in that petition th