JUDGMENT : KNOX, J.:— This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Mihin Lal, who is respondent here, for a declaration that his share in certain property, which had been mortgaged by his father and uncle, was not liable to sale in execution of a’ decree obtained upon the mortgages. The suit was instituted after the death of the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff was made a defendant to the suit, which was instituted on the 27th August, 1897. In the plaint in that suit, Mihin Lal was described as a minor, and his mother, Musammat Mohni, who had been his certificated guardian, was appointed guardian ad litem. It is found that Mihin Lal had attained majority just one fortnight before the suit was instituted. In the plaint in the present suit Mihin Lal throughout alleges that his mother had colluded with the appellants and had allowed the decree to pass, and owing to collusion did not appeal from it. He further alleges that he did not come to know of the decree which was passed on the 13th of January, 1898, until the 26th of November, 1900, when the sale notification was issued. All these allegations are found to be false, and it is further found that jointly with his mother he defended the claim. The lower appellate Court relies upon the decision of this Court in Sheorania v. Bharat Singh, [1897] I.L.R., 20 All, 90. and the learned Vakil for the respondent relies further upon the case, Hanuman Parshad v. Muhammad Ishaq, [1905] 2 A.L.J.E., 615 to be found in the second volume of the Allahabad Law Journal, page 615. Both of these cases are clearly distinguishable from the present case. In our opinion the plaintiff's suit ought to have been dismissed. His allegations of collusion and as to the date when he came to know of the passing of the decree have been found to be false. He was a defendant to the original suit. He undoubtedly had notice of it and if he thought that his interests were not properly safe guarded by his mother, he could have applied to have her removed to be allowed to defend the suit. He stood by and did not do so. There is no allegation that the debt was tainted with immorality. On these grounds we think that this appeal must succeed. He stood by and did not do so. There is no allegation that the debt was tainted with immorality. On these grounds we think that this appeal must succeed. We set aside the decrees of the Courts below and we dismiss the plaintiff's claim with costs in all Courts. The costs in this Court will include fees on the higher scale.