JUDGMENT

Zafar Ali, J. - The two connected appeals Nos. 1336 and 1337 of 1927 which arise out of two separate suits involve same questions of law. The subject matter of litigation is an occupancy holding which was once in the joint possession of two brothers Shadi and Hadi who were Arain agriculturists. Shadi died leaving him surviving a married daughter named Mt. Jhando. On the death of Shadi his one--half share in the holding devolved upon Hadi. As Hadi was childless he gifted the entire holding to Nur Ilahi, the husband of Mt. Jhando. It so happened that Mt. Jhando as well as the two sons that she had borne to Nur Ilahi died and Nur Ilahi remarried. A son was born of this second marriage whose name is Barkat Ali. When Nur Ilahi died the holding was mutated in the name of Barkat Ali who was then a minor, but the reversioners of Shadi and Hadi contested Barkat Ali's right to succeed on the ground that the gift to Nur Ilahi was only for the benefit of Mt. Jhando and her children, and that as Jhando and her children had all died the property gifted must revert to the collaterals of the donor according to the general rule of custom applying to agricultural tribes. One of these reversioners, namely, Umra brought a suit for possession of his share in the holding. In that suit the rest of the reversioners were impleaded as co-defendants and the two sons of one of these co-defendants figured as co-plaintiffs with Umra. But these two co-plaintiffs had no right of succession as their father was alive, and so the suit was decreed with regard to the one-fourth share of Umra alone. As Barkat Ali was then a minor his mother was appointed his guardian ad litem and she engaged a member of the local bar to defend the action. It appears that Barkat Ali attained majority on 10th January 1924 and the evidence in that case was closed on 28th January 1924. The fact that Barkat Ali had become major was not brought to the notice of the Court and Umra's claim was decreed on 3rd March 1924. An appeal against that decree was lodged on behalf of Barkat Ali by one Ghaus representing him to be a minor. This appeal was dismissed and a further appeal by Barkat Ali himself to the High Court was also dismissed.

2. That litigation having thus finally ended, some of the remaining reversioners who were co-defendants of 'Barkat Ali in the former case brought the present suit for possession of their share in the holding. Barkat Ali on the other hand, instituted a counter-suit for a declaration that the decree against him in the former suit was a nullity because he had become major before it had been passed and he was not given notice to appear and defend the action, while his quondum guardian was then "functus officio:" The trial Court dismissed Barkat Ali's suit and decreed that of the reversioners. On appeal by Barkat Ali, the learned Additional District Judge of Jullundur has reversed both these decrees.

3. Now, as regards Barkat Ali's suit the learned Additional District Judge's finding was that all the proceedings in the former suit against Barkat Ali that took place after the date of his majority were ultra vires, but he cited no law or authority in support of this conclusion. On the other hand, he observed that:

there is nothing in Order 32 (Civil P.C.,) to show that it was necessary to issue a notice to the appellant on his attainment of majority. On the contrary it would appear that it was his duty on attaining the age of majority to apply to the Court to remove his guardian ad litem and to allow him to conduct the case in person.

4. Rules 12 and 13, Order 32, Civil P.C., lay down the course that a plaintiff may follow on attaining majority, but there is no corresponding rule relating to a defendant who should become major during the pendency of a suit. The reason for this omission obviously is that while a plaintiff on becoming major can put an end to the litigation a defendant on attaining majority cannot do so and the case must proceed. He has notice of th