Judgement Appeal from a decree of the above Court (May 20, 1907) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Barabanhi (June 30, 1906). On December 20, 1905, the two first respondents sued the appellants, who were auction purchasers at a sale in execution of a decree dated November 14, 1894, of the property in suit. One of the appellants, Munnu Lal, had instituted a suit on the basis of a mortgage in his favour dated December 20, 1889, to bring to sale all the property which had descended from Ghulam Hazrat, whose estate had been mortgaged by his four sons. In that suit the four sons of Ghulam Hazrat were made defendants. Two of them, the said respondents, were minors. Their brother Ghulam Dastgir had been appointed in 1886 their guardian under Act IV. of 1858, but was removed in 1893. In Munnu Lals suit another brother, Ghulam Razzak, was appointed their guardian ad litem. Accordingly he was made a party defendant to the suit of the two respondents, as also the widow of Ghulam Dastgir. The prayer of the plaint was to recover their half share in the property purchased by the appellants. The two first respondents as plaintiffs contended that the said decree dated November 14, 1894, was not binding on them because in the suit in which it was made their brother Ghulam Razzak had not Law. Rep. 37 Ind. App. 77 ( 1909- 1910) Munshi Munnu Lal V. Ghulam Abbas 22 been duly appointed guardian ad litem, and that the said bond dated December 20, 1889, was also not binding on them because the moneys then borrowed by Ghulam Dastgir were not borrowed for their benefit, nor with the sanction of the Court. The appellants contended that both the decree and the bond were binding on the plaintiffs. The Subordinate Judge decided that both decree and bond were binding on the plaintiffs. In the suit they were properly represented by a guardian ad litem duly appointed against whom no fraud, collusion, or gross negligence could be charged. The bond was shewn to have been made for their benefit. He dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge decided that both decree and bond were binding on the plaintiffs. In the suit they were properly represented by a guardian ad litem duly appointed against whom no fraud, collusion, or gross negligence could be charged. The bond was shewn to have been made for their benefit. He dismissed the suit. The Judicial Commissioner in appeal found that the decree in question dated November 14, 1894, was not binding on the plaintiffs because the Court trying the said suit had not before it the affidavit required by s. 456 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the time it appointed Ghulam Razzak to be guardian ad litem. He accordingly set aside the sale with consequential relief. De Gruyther, K.C., and Dube, for the appellants, contended that the decree of November 14, 1894, was binding on the respondents. They were duly represented by their guardian ad litem. Reference was made to Civil Procedure Code, ss. 443 and 456, and to Mussammat Bibi Walian v. Banke Behari Pershad Singh. (1) Their interests had not been prejudiced in any way, and the decree made was for debts for which they were admittedly liable jointly with their brothers. Ross, for the respondents, contended that there had been no proper representation of the minors by Ghulam Razzak in the suit which resulted in the decree of November 14, 1894. Sect. 456, C. C. P., had not been strictly complied with, and therefore the guardian who acted for them had not been legally appointed. The evidence shewed that he was a person unfit to be appointed. The appellants were not heard in reply. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. Their Lordships are of opinion that the decision of the Subordinate Judge was perfectly right. The question is whether the respondents, in whose favour a former decree, made when they were infants, has been set aside were properly represented at the hearing of the suit in which the decree was pronounced. The objection was that the affidavit required by s. 456 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not forthcoming. It does not appear whether in point of fact there was an affidavit or not. But assuming that there was not such an affidavit, their Lordships think it impossible now to hold that the infants were not pro perly represented at the time. It does not appear whether in point of fact there was an affidavit or not. But assuming that there was not such an affidavit, their Lordships think it impossible now to hold that the infants were not pro perly represented at the time. The learned judge appointed Ghulam Razzak their guardian ad litem. The order is on the record, and it must be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that everything was regularly and properly done. The case that was referred to of Mussammat Bibi Walian v. Banke Behari Pershad Singh (( 1903) L. R. 30 Ind. Ap. 182, 188.) is really a much stronger case, because there the person who acted as guardian ad litem was not formally appointed, but he was recognized as guardian ad litem by the Court in the progress of the suit, and it was held by this Board that after that recognition it was too late to dispute his appointment. Law. Rep. 37 Ind. App. 77 ( 1909- 1910) Munshi Munnu Lal V. Ghulam Abbas 23 Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be allowed. The respondents must pay the costs of the appeal.