Judgment 1. ONE Nandarani Devi filed a Title Suit, being No. 61 of 1952, in the first Court of Subordinate Judge, chandernagore, on 31st of October, 1952, against Asoke Kumar Das Gupta for cancellation of, upon declaration that a deed of gift, being No. 254, dated 23rd August, 1947, purported to have had been executed by Nandarani in Ltiavour of the defendant Asoke Kumar das Gupta, was void, inoperative, illegal, and was not binding on the plaintiff nandarani. Asoke Kumar Das Gupta was impleaded as a major in the said suit. On 27th January, 1953, Asoke kumar Das Gupta as major verified a written statement as true to his knowledge and information and the written statement was filed in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge on 27th January, 1953. The issues were settled on 11th March, 1953. Then the suit proceeded to trial. Evidence of nandarani Devi, the plaintiff, was recorded on commission on 5th July, 1953, and the evidence of one Dr. Joggeswar srimani on commission was recorded an 11th September, 1955. Other witnesses for the plaintiff Nandarani were examined on 3rd October, 1955, 7th October, 1955 and 11th October, 1955. The defendant's witnesses were examined on 11th October, 1954, 29th November, 1955 and 3rd December, 1955. The learned Subordinate Judge delivered judgment on 14th January, 1956, dismissing the suit. Six days before the judgment was delivered, the property, which is the subject-matter of dispute, was transferred to one Kanai Fachal nandarani died on 18th January, 1956. Kanai Pachal preferred the present appeal and died during the pendency of the appeal, and had been substituted for by his heirs and legal representatives. 2. FOR the appellants the learned advocate Mr. Amarendra Mohan Mitra and for the respondent Asoke Kumar das Gupta, Mr. Mallick appeared. We had the pleasure of hearing their arguments extending over a number of days. Today it came to light that on the date of filing of the plaint, that is, on 31st October, 1952, the defendant, now the respondent Asoke Kumar Das Gupta, was aged 16 years 4 months, and on the date of delivery of the judgment, he was 19 years 6 months and some days. Today it came to light that on the date of filing of the plaint, that is, on 31st October, 1952, the defendant, now the respondent Asoke Kumar Das Gupta, was aged 16 years 4 months, and on the date of delivery of the judgment, he was 19 years 6 months and some days. It is patent from the record that the plaint was filed against a minor defendant and the minor defendant passing himself as major filed the written statement and the trial proceeded on the footing that the minor defendant was major. 3. THE deed in question was executed in Chandernagore in the year 1947 when Chandernagore was a French territory. It was executed before the chandernagore Notaire, equivalent to the Registrar under the Indian registration Act. In 1947, when the deed was executed and upto second day of October 1954, when the merger of chandernagore into the State of West Bengal and matters connected there with were embodied in Act 36 of 1954 of the Indian Parliament, the law prevailing in Chandernagore was the French Civil Code. Appointed day in section 2 (a) of Act 36 of 1954 means the second day of October 1954. Section 17 of the Act runs as follows : "extension of laws to Chandernagore-All laws which immediately before the appointed day extended to, or are in force in, the State of West Bengal generally shall, as from that day, extend to or, as the case may be, come into force in Chandernagore. " section 18 runs as follows:- ''repeal of corresponding laws and savings- (1) Any law in force in Chandernagore immediately before the appointed day (hereafter in this Act referred to as the "corresponding law") which corresponds to any law referred to in section 17, whether such corresponding law is in force in Chandernagore by virtue of the Chandernagore (Application of Laws) Order, 1950 or by virtue of any notification issued under the chandernagore (Administration)Regulation, 1952 (Reg. I of 1952) or otherwise, shall as from that day, stand repealed in Chandernagore. I of 1952) or otherwise, shall as from that day, stand repealed in Chandernagore. (2) The repeal by sub-section (1) of any corresponding law shall not affect- (a) the previous operation of any such law; or (b) any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any such law; or (c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any such law; or (d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued, or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture, or punishment may be imposed as if this Act had not been passed. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), anything done or any action taken (including any appointment or delegation made, notification, order, instruction or direction issued, rule, form, bye-law or scheme framed, certificate, patent, permit, or licence granted, or registration effected), under such corresponding law shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provision of the law as extended to, or in force in, chandernagore on and from the appointed day and shall continue in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under such law. " 4. THE defendant Asoke Kumar das Gupta proved through witnesses english translation of extracts from the french Law Book captioned General jurisprudence, Dalloz, annotated codes Volume I, pages 692-693-694-695, exhibit L (F'age 75 of the paper book, part II. Article 388 of the English translation of extracts from French Law book referred to above reads as follows:- "a minor is an individual of either sex who has not yet accomplished the age of twenty-one years." sub-Articles 8-11 read as follows:- "the minor is represented, in the acts of civil life, by his father, legal administrator, or by his guardian who represents alone in these acts." in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Order 32 rule 3 sub-rule 1 reads as follows:- "where the defendant is a minor, the Court, on being satisfied of the fact of his minority, shall appoint a proper person to be guardian for the suit for such minor". Sub-RULES 2, 3, 4 and 5 speak of the procedure for appointment of guardian representing the minor in the suit. Sub-RULES 2, 3, 4 and 5 speak of the procedure for appointment of guardian representing the minor in the suit. The "corresponding French Law" which is mentioned in section 18 of Act 36 of 1954 would be applicable in the present case, in view of the provisions of section 18 sub-section (2) clauses (a-d), even in spite of the repeal of the corresponding French Law. Neither in the plaint nor in the written statement the "corresponding French Law" that means the law corresponding to order 32 rule 3 of the Code of Civil procedure had either been pleaded or proved. Cheshire in his Private international Law (7th Edition) observes at page 115 as follows:- "unless the foreign law with which a case may be connected is pleaded by the party relying thereon, the presumption is that it is the same as English law. The onus of proving that it is different, and of proving what it is, lies upon the party who pleads the difference. If there is no such plea, the court must give a decision according to English law, even though the case may be connected solely with some foreign country. The question as to what is the foreign law upon some particular matter, like other matters of which no knowledge is imputed to the judge, must be proved, as facts are proved, by appropriate evidence i. e. by properly qualified witnesses". 5. EXHIBITS 7 and 7 (a) (pages 69-74 of the paper book) were admitted in evidence without any objection. Exhibit 7 is the English translation of the extracts from French Law Book captioned new Code Civil by Dalloz, 1901-1905. Exhibit 7 (a) is also the English translation of the extracts from French law Book. Exhibit L has already been referred to. Exhibits 7, 7 (a) and L are English translations of the extracts from French New Code Civil by Dalloz (pages 69-75 of the paper book. Those were duly proved by competent witnesses and admitted in evidence without any objection. We have already pointed out (Exhibit L, Article 388, sub-Articles 8-11) that according to French Law, a minor, that means, an individual of either sex who has not yet accomplished the age of 21 years is to be represented in acts of civil life by his father, legal administrator or by his guardian who alone represents in those acts. We have already pointed out (Exhibit L, Article 388, sub-Articles 8-11) that according to French Law, a minor, that means, an individual of either sex who has not yet accomplished the age of 21 years is to be represented in acts of civil life by his father, legal administrator or by his guardian who alone represents in those acts. A defendant is summoned to answer the plaint and if he chooses to answer the plaint he may file a written statement. This act of the defendant in the suit is his act in civil life. If a minor defendant is summoned to answer the plaint and if he chooses to appear and answer the plaint, he must be, according to the Indian Law, represented in the suit by a guardian-ad-litem appointed by the court, who may be either the natural guardian or a testamentary guardian or a certificated guardian or any other person in absence of either of those guardians, appointed by the court by a specific order made by the court in that behalf in the suit or the proceeding. The guardian-ad-litem represents the minor defendant in the suit and in the proceeding relating to and arising therefrom. If the guardian-ad-litem appears in the suit to answer the plaint on behalf of the minor defendant the guurdian-ad-litem acting for and on behalf of the minor and representing the minor in the suit, shall have to file the written statement and act in the suit for and on behalf of the minor and in the proceeding relating to and arising therefrom. The minor defendant cannot be sued without being represented by a lawfully appointed guardian-ad-litem. It is only through the guardian-ad-litem appointed in the suit; representing the minor in the suit, the minor acts in the suit but not otherwise. The minor defendant's acts in the suit done through his guardian-ad-litem appointed in the suit are his civil acts done not directly, but through his legally appointed guardian in the suit. It is only through the guardian-ad-litem appointed in the suit; representing the minor in the suit, the minor acts in the suit but not otherwise. The minor defendant's acts in the suit done through his guardian-ad-litem appointed in the suit are his civil acts done not directly, but through his legally appointed guardian in the suit. The act of filing a written statement by a minor defendant in a suit in answer to a plaint and all other acts connected with, the defence to the plaintiff's claim in the suit are the acts in civil life of the minor defendant who, under the law, cannot act otherwise than by a person representing him and who, under the French Law, must be either the father or the administrator or the guardian of the minor. Under the Indian Law, a minor defendant in a suit can act in his civil life while filing a written statement and defending the suit only through a lawfully appointed guardian in the suit, appointed by the order made by the court in the suit. If the French Law, that means the " corresponding law", as section 18 of Act 36 of 1954 speaks of, is different from the Indian Law, as in Order 32 rule 3 of the code of Civil Procedure, it is for a party to the suit either the plaintiff or the defendant to plead the difference and to prove the difference through witnesses versed in the French Law. Neither in the plaint nor in the written statement it was pleaded that the French Law corresponding to the Indian Law as in Order 32 rule 3 of the civil Procedure Code, as obtaining in chandernagore, a French territory, in October, 1952 was different. Under the Indian Law a suit against a minor defendant is not lawfully constituted till a guardian-ad-litem is appointed by the order of the court made in that behalf. As observed by Cheshire in his Private International Law, this court must presume that the " corresponding law" has been the same as the Indian Law, as in Order 32 rule X of the Code "of Civil Procedure. We, however, have noticed a specific provision in Article 388 Sub-Articles 8-11 of the English translation of the extracts from French Law Book (Exhibit L, page 75 of the paper book. We, however, have noticed a specific provision in Article 388 Sub-Articles 8-11 of the English translation of the extracts from French Law Book (Exhibit L, page 75 of the paper book. There a minor has been defined and a minor's representation in the acts of his civil life has been clearly prescribed. The expression "acts of civil life", as we think, in relation to a minor defendant in a suit, includes his act of signing, verifying and filing of a written statement in a, suit as well as of his defending the suit by deposing as a witness on his behalf. If we take into consideration the French Law English translation of which was proved by witnesses versed in French Law and was exhibited before the learned Subordinate judge, the minor defendant Asoke kumar Das Gupta in the suit had not been represented in the suit either by any legal administrator or by his guardian since his father was then dead when the plaint was filed. According to Indian Law, Asoke Kumar Das Gupta who was born on 30th of June 1936 (vide. Ext. Bl), was below the age of 18 years when the plaint was filed in the suit on 31-10-52 impleading him as a defendant in the suit, without being represented in the suit either by his natural guardian or by his administrator or by his guardian appointed in the suit by the order of the court. Asoke kumar Das Gupta was a minor below 21 years of age, according to French Law, not only on the date when the plaint was filed but also on the date when the judgment was delivered. According to the Indian Law, he was a minor below the age of 18 years not only when he signed, verified and filed the written statement but also when he had deposed as a witness before the learned Subordinate Judge. On the date of delivery of the judgment in the suit by the learned Subordinate judge, Asoke was above the age of 18 years. On the date of delivery of the judgment in the suit by the learned Subordinate judge, Asoke was above the age of 18 years. Passing himself as major under the French Law as well as under the Indian Law, the defendant Asoke kumar Das Gupta though a minor under both the law, signed, verified and filed the written statement and deposed as a witness on his behalf in the suit, although he was not represented in the suit by a guardian either under the French Law or under the Indian Law. But the acts aforesaid, done by the defendant Asoke Kumar Das Gupta in the suit are his "acts of civil life" done by him while a minor both under the French Law as well as under the Indian law. The minor defendant in the suit asoke Kumar Das Gupta could do all those "acts of civil life" only through his lawful representative, acting for and on his behalf in those "acts of civil life" (vide Ext. L, Article 388 Sub-Articles 8-11-French Law. Under the Indian law, the minor defendant Asoke Kumar das Gupta could do all those "acts of civil life" mentioned above in the suit only through his guardian-ad-litem appointed in the suit by the order of the court acting for and on his behalf in the suit. So, the minor defendant Asoke kumar Das Gupta could do no "acts of civil life" in the suit both under the french and Indian Law, as he had done, since he was not being represented in the suit either by administrator or by a guardian or by a guardian-ad-litem, appointed by the order of the court, acting for and on behalf of the minor Asoke kumar Das Gupta in the "acts of his civil life" that were done by him in the suit. Accordingly, all the acts, done in his civil life, by minor Asoke Kumar Das Gupta, in the suit, by signing, verifying and filing the written statement and by deposing in the suit as a witness on his behalf during his minority both under the French and Indian Law, are not his lawful "acts of civil life" both under the French Law and the Indian law. The suit upon the plaint, filed against the defendant Asoke Kumar Das Gupta while a minor both under the French and the Indian Law, was not a lawfully constituted suit. The suit upon the plaint, filed against the defendant Asoke Kumar Das Gupta while a minor both under the French and the Indian Law, was not a lawfully constituted suit. The written statement filed by the minor defendant Asoke Kumar Das Gupta in suit in answer to the plaint, was not also acceptable as such both under the French Law and the Indian Law. When the appeal was filed against the defendant Asoke Kumar Das Gupta on s2. 2. 56, he was below the age of 21 years and as such a minor, under the French Law, though major under the Indian Law. The suit was not therefore lawfully constituted, and the trial held in the suit was invalid in law. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate judge cannot be sustained and must be set aside and reversed. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate judge and remand the suit to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, first Court, Hooghly. As soon as the record of the suit shall reach the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, he would allow the parties to the suit opportunities to take such legal step or steps, as they would be advised, and would, thereafter, proceed with the suit according to law. 6. THE appeal is, therefore, allowed, but having regard to the circumstances under which we allow this appeal there will be no order as to costs.