JUDGMENT S.N. Singh, J. - The petitioners were hereditary tenants of the plots in suit. They were ejected in a suit under Sec. 171 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. 2. After the passing of Act X of 1947 the petitioners applied under Sec. 27 of that Act for being reinstated to the plots in suit. To this petition of theirs they impleaded opposite parties Nos. 4 to 7 as parties to the petition and impleaded opposite parties 5 to 7 as minors under the guardianship of their elder brother Lakhan Singh. The application of the petitioners under Sec. 27 of Act X of 1947 was allowed by the Assistant Collector on 14th June 1948 who declared opposite parties 4 to 7 as sub-tenants for a period of three years. In proceedings under Sec. 27 of the said Act a guardian was appointed for Hakim Singh. It is pertinent to note at this place that neither Hakim Singh nor anyone of the opposite parties objected those proceedings on the ground that Hakim Singh was major and not minor. In that case Lakhan Singh, elder brother appeared, but finding no defence in the case, did not contest the application of the petitioners. After the expiry of three years the petitioners filed a suit under Sec. 202 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against opposite parties 4 to 7 for their ejectment treating them as asamis. In this suit also the petitioners having considered Hakim Singh, to be minor impleaded him as a minor, but, subsequently, on an objection he was treated to be major. The suit of the petitioners was contested by opposite parties 4 to 7 on the ground that Hakim Singh was not a minor during the proceedings under Sec. 27 of the said Act and he was wrongly impleaded as a minor, that the proceedings were not binding on him. It was also pleaded that Prem Singh and Rajpal, opposite parties 5 and 6 to this petition, were also not properly represented by their guardian in the proceedings under Sec. 27 of Act X of 1947. 3. It was also pleaded that Prem Singh and Rajpal, opposite parties 5 and 6 to this petition, were also not properly represented by their guardian in the proceedings under Sec. 27 of Act X of 1947. 3. All the revenue courts have dismissed the suit of the petitioners on the ground that Hakim Singh who was really a major at the time when the proceedings under Sec. 27 of Act X of 1947 had been taken, was impleaded as a minor, as such, the decision given in the proceeding under Act X of 1947 was nullity and not binding on Hakim Singh. The revenue courts also held that since Hakim Singh was not bound by the judgment in proceedings under Act X of 1947, no useful purpose would be served by decreeing the suit as against others hence dismissed the suit. 4. The petitioners have preferred this petition challenging the decision of opposite parties to 3 on the ground that they have committed a mistake apparent on the face of the record in dismissing the suit of the petitioners and in holding the decision under Act X of 1947 to be a nullity. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Hakim Singh who was above 12 years of age at the time when proceedings under Act X of 1947 had been taken and he not having objected his impleadment as a minor in those proceedings was estopped from challenging the decision given in Sec. 27 proceedings. It was further argued that Lakhan Singh who was admittedly a major and was a party to the proceedings under Sec. 27 of Act X of 1947 also did not raise any objection about Hakim Singh being major and since there was no defence open in such a case he did not put any defence, although he was present in those proceedings. 6. I have head learned counsel for the parties in respect of the submissions made by them and I am of opinion that this petition should succeed. In proceedings under Sec. 27 of Act X of 1947 a guardian was appointed of all the minors including Hakim Singh. 6. I have head learned counsel for the parties in respect of the submissions made by them and I am of opinion that this petition should succeed. In proceedings under Sec. 27 of Act X of 1947 a guardian was appointed of all the minors including Hakim Singh. Order XXXII, Rule 3 sub-clause (4) runs as follows: - "(4) No order shall be made on any application under this rule except upon notice to the minor and to any guardian appointed or declared by an authority competent in that behalf,..............." 7. In the case under Sec. 27 of Act X of 1947 when, a guardian was appointed of this Hakim Singh, it will be presumed that procedure as contemplated by the above rule was followed. If the procedure as contemplated by the above rule was followed and a guardian was appointed for Hakim Singh in those proceedings,then it is not open to Hakim Singh to agitate that matter in the subsequent proceedings and challenge that the appointment of the guardian was improper. In my opinion, when there was a valid appointment of guardian in a previous proceeding, the person who has allowed that order to be made, is estopped from challenging that order when he did not object at the proper time. In proceedings under Sec. 27 of Act X of 1947 on the admitted case of the parties there was no valid defence open to Lakhan Singh or his brothers and finding no defence open Lakhan Singh did not contest that matter and allowed opposite parties 4 to 7 to be declared as sub-tenants for three years, That was maximum that could have been done for the opposite parties 4 to 7. Opposite party No. 4 Lakhan Singh who was the head of the family of opposite parties 4 to 7 having been properly represented in those proceedings, a decision given in those proceedings is binding on all. Hakim Singh cannot be allowed to challenge that decision specially when the decision which has been given in the case is against the head of the family. In my opinion, Hakim Singh would be deemed to have been represented in that case by Lakhan Singh who was the eldest brother. 8. Hakim Singh cannot be allowed to challenge that decision specially when the decision which has been given in the case is against the head of the family. In my opinion, Hakim Singh would be deemed to have been represented in that case by Lakhan Singh who was the eldest brother. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that Hakim Singh, would have taken the plea that he was not admitted to tenancy by the zamindari, but was only a trespasser. If he had taken this plea, he would have been dispossessed forthwith. The advantage that was given to Hakim Singh having been admitted by the zamindar would not have been given to him on that defence. 9. Sri Bhawani Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite parties, also submitted that there is no allegation in this petition that the notice was given to Hakim Singh in proceedings under Sec. 27 of Act X of 1947. I have already observed above that under Order XXXII, Rule 3, sub-clause (4) it was incumbent on the court to have issued necessary notice and in absence of any allegation to the contrary, it will be presumed that due legal formalities were performed. In this case the opposite parties have not cared to file any counter affidavit and the allegations of the petitioners in para. 5 of the affidavit that there was a due appointment of the guardian has not been controverted. As such the objection of the learned counsel on this point has no force. Reliance was also placed upon Sakal Singh v. Chandradip Lal, AIR 1919 Patna 10. In that case also although it was observed that the plaintiff in that case would not be deemed to be a party because he was impleaded as a minor, when he was a major, but he would be bound by the decree because he was represented in that case by his father being the head of joint family. In the present case also I have held that Lakhan Singh being the eldest member of the family represented Hakim Singh also in those proceedings. This authority does not go against the view that I have taken in this case. 10. On the facts of this case there was absolutely no prejudice done to Hakim Singh. The three revenue courts have wrongly entertained the plea of Hakim Singh and dismissed the suit. This authority does not go against the view that I have taken in this case. 10. On the facts of this case there was absolutely no prejudice done to Hakim Singh. The three revenue courts have wrongly entertained the plea of Hakim Singh and dismissed the suit. On the facts of the present case the petitioners were the tenure-holders and the status of opposite parties 4 to 7 was no better than asamis. The opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 have committed a mistake apparent on the face of the record which deserve to be corrected. 11. Accordingly, I allow this petition. The orders of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 dated 12th February 1960, 1st November 1956 and 18th of June, 1955 are hereby quashed. The petitioners are entitled to their costs of this petition. The result is that the suit will now be decided on merits. Petition allowed.