JUDGMENT

Skemp, J. - Bhagat Ram obtained a money decree against tihe estate of one Ganda Singh, father of Buta Singh, the present plaintiff, Buta Singh, being a minor was represented in that suit by a Court official. Bhagat Ram put his decree into execution by attachment and sale of the house in suit. In these execution proceedings, Mt. Bal Kaur, the mother of the minor acted as the guardian ad litem of Buta Singh. The house was put up for sale and purchased by Daryai Lal a relation of the decree-holder. The property in suit has been found to be ancestral. Now Mt. Bal Kiaur, while acting as the guardian ad litem of her son, did not take the obvious objection that the house was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree obtained by Bhagat Ram because, on the death of Ganda Singh, the house became the exclusive property of Buta Singh and was not liable to he attached and sold in execution of the decree against his father. The present, suit was brought by the minor Buta Singh under the guardianship of his maternal uncle for a declaration that the attachment and sale of the house in the course of the execution proceedings was not binding upon him because his mother had acted with gross negligence. A number of issues were framed and the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The minor went up in appeal. The lower appellate Court, held that the house was the ancestral property of the minor and the guardian had acted with gross, negligence in not pressing the claim of the minor in view of the law laid down in Jadip Singh v. Bawa Narain Singh (1913) 4 P.R. 1913. There were other pleas with which we are not concemecr except that the learned Judge found that the auction purchaser cannot be said, on the evidence which was placed before him, to have acted in bad faith or as a bienamidar for tihe decree-holder. The operative portion of the judgment is as follows:

The appeal is accordingly accepted and the sale of house declared as not binding on the appellant Buta Singh, so far as the sale proceeds of the house are concerned. The execution proceedings after the attachment of the house shall be re-opened and tho right of the decree-holder to the sale proceeds shall be liable to be questioned by the minor's guardian ad litem but the auction purchaser's right to the house shall not be questioned. The decree-holder shall pay the costs of the appellant in both Courts.

2. This order is not perhaps quite satisfactory but after the finding that the auction purchaser has acted in good faith, I am afraid nothing more can be done. The defendant-decree-holder has now come up to this Court. Diwan Mehr Chand, the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant has filed the second appeal. The title of the appeal, so far as the appellant is concerned is significant and runs as follows:

Bhagat Ram son of Beli Ram, caste Khatri, resident of Jhabran, Tahsil and District Sheikhupura, defendant appellant for self and for the benefit of Daryai Lal, his co-defendant.

3. He argues that, the finding of the lower appellate Court that the mother had acted with gross negligence is not sufficient in law for setting aside the execution proceedings. He has relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Imam Din v. Puran Chand 1920 Lah. 417. There the learned Judge, in a case very much like the present, after holding that the mother was grossly negligent in not raising a similar plea, went on to hold, on the author rity of Raghubar Dyal Sahu v. Bhikya Lal Misser (1886) 12 Cal. 69, that, where a decree has been, made against an infant, duly represented by his guardian, and the infant, on attaining his majority, seeks to set the decree aside by a separate suit, he can succeed onlyi on proof of fraud or collusion on the part of his guardian. He has referred to an Allahabad case Chandar Sekhar v. Balakdhar (1912) 15 I.C. 611, which lays down that, if the guardian neglected to support the case of a minor but there is nothing to show that he