JUDGMENT : N.N. Sharma, J. This is a Plaintiff's appeal directed against the judgment and decree of Sri O.N. Asthana, Judge Small Causes Courts (Civil Judge), Allahabad dated 25-3-1974 who allowed Civil Appeal No. 418 of 1973 and dismissed the Plaintiff's suit No. 502 of 1970 with costs. 2. Judgment and decree of trial-court dated 17-8-1973 who had decreed the suit with costs was reversed. 3. Unfortunately the record of the trial court which contained the file of Consolidation court also could not be available as it had been burnt up in a fire in the Record Room of Collector ate, Allahabad. Parties filed copies of written statement, compromise, etc. along with their affidavit and counter-affidavit. 4. Dispute relates to agricultural plots situated in village-Supra Bari, Pargana-Sikandra district-Allahabad. 5. Relief sought was for setting aside the compromise and orders dated 22-9-1967 and 16-10-69 of the Consolidation Court and for recovery of possession over the properties. 6. Plaintiff is Dina Nath, Appellant. Defendant No. 3 is Prasidh Narain, elder brother of Plaintiff. Their mother is. Smt Chameli, PW 1. Main contesting Defendant No. 1 is Deo Narain, a collateral of Dinanath. 7. Plaintiff was a minor during the consolidation proceeding No. 3157 (year not noted) vide Annexure-11 appended to the affidavit of Dinanath Plaintiff. Those proceedings resulted in compromise decree on the basis of composition dated 22-8-1967 (vide Annexure-11) aforesaid. Plaintiff alleged that the said compromise was obtained by Defendant No. 1 in collusion with Defendant No. 3 by which Sirdari rights of Plaintiff in plots Nos. 52, 629 and 630 were given to Defendant No. 1 who had no right, title or interest in it. No legal guardian was appointed on behalf of the minor to enter into such compromise. Plaintiff never consented to that compromise but his appeal failed on a technical ground, hence this suit. 8. Claim was resisted on the ground that Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 were co-tenants in the disputed holding; Defendant had not committed any fraud and permission to file the compromise was obtained from Consolidation Officer. The claim was also barred by limitation. The suit was barred by Sections 5, 10, 11, 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 9. Both the courts below found that the suit was not barred by Sections 5, 10, 11, 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The claim was also barred by limitation. The suit was barred by Sections 5, 10, 11, 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 9. Both the courts below found that the suit was not barred by Sections 5, 10, 11, 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Both the courts further found that Plaintiffs natural-guardian Smt. Chameli, PW 1, was not appointed as legal guardian by the Consolidation authorities. Such appointment was rot available on the record. Learned Trial court further found that Deo Narain Defendant No. 1 was never in possession over the disputed plot nor there was any entry in Khasra or Khatauni in his favour so far as disputed holding was concerned. The ACO did not follow the procedure laid down under Rule 14 of U.P. Consolidation of Moldings Rules framed under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (Act No. 5 of 54) as amended upto date. So the compromise was not only illegal but a nullity and so was cancelled. 10. Learned appellate court found that in the compromise arrived at amongst the parties there were several cases and so the parties mutually adjusted their disputes irrespective of rights and interest of the parties in each agricultural holding. The compromise has not prejudiced the Plaintiff's interest and so there was no sufficient cause to set aside the compromise. In the result the appeal was allowed as given above. 11. Aggrieved by that decision this appeal has been filed. 12. 1 have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. The simple point which falls to be considered in this appeal is whether non-observance of the procedure of Rule 14 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has rendered the compromise void? Rule 14 aforesaid reads as below: 14. Section 54(1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall in consultation with the Consolidation Committee appoint guardians, for purposes of proceedings under the Act, of such tenure-holders who are minors, idiots or lunatics unless such guardians have been already appointed by order of a competent Court. (2) The guardian appointed for a minor, idiot or lunatic under Sub-rule (1) shall be natural guardian unless the natural guardian possesses an interest adverse to the interest of the minor, the idiot or the lunatic. If the natural guardian is not so appointed, the Asstt. (2) The guardian appointed for a minor, idiot or lunatic under Sub-rule (1) shall be natural guardian unless the natural guardian possesses an interest adverse to the interest of the minor, the idiot or the lunatic. If the natural guardian is not so appointed, the Asstt. Consolidation Officer shall record reasons therefore and shall then appoint the nearest male relative of the minor, the idiot or the lunatic, not possessing an interest adverse to him, as his guardian. (3) A list of all such guardians together with the names of their wards shall be published in the village and any person interested in the ward may file an objection against such appointment before the Consolidation Officer within fifteen days of such publication, whose orders shall, subject to the (modification, if an. "made by orders passed u/s 48) be final". 14. On behalf of the Respondent learned Advocate pointed out that this Rule was not mandatory. Its non-observance did not render compromise decree nullity. In this connection reliance was placed upon Mukund Ram v. Asstt. Director of Consolidation 1975 RD 274 which posited: It was contended that Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Act enjoins upon the Asstt. Consolidation Officer to appoint a legal guardian for purposes of proceedings under the Act of such tenure-holders who are minors and whose guardians have not been appointed by an order of a competent court. Held: Assuming it for the Petitioner that this rule was not complied with, it does not introduce an illegality in the proceeding itself, more so when the minor was represented by a member of his family. Moreover, Rule 14 applies only to cases of recorded tenure-holders and not to cases where a person is claiming mutation of his name over the holding. At any rate, non compliance of the Rule is only an irregularly and does not vitiate the proceeding in law. 15. It appears that in that case the Petitioner's name was not recorded as a tenure-holder but he sought mutation of his name over that holding in his capacity as heir of Smt. Gaya Kunwar. Opposite party contested the claim on the ground that Karuna Shanker was adopted son of Smt. Gaya Kunwar and so his contention was upheld by the courts below. 16. Opposite party contested the claim on the ground that Karuna Shanker was adopted son of Smt. Gaya Kunwar and so his contention was upheld by the courts below. 16. The contention of Petitioner that Rule 14 aforesaid was not observed was repelled on the ground that minor was represented by a member of his family and name of Petitioner was not entered over the disputed holding as a tenure-holder and so non-compliance of that Rule was only an irregularity. 17. Learned Counsel for the Respondent also relied upon Ittavira Mathai Vs. Varkey Varkey and Another, AIR 1964 SC 907 . In that case a decree was passed by the court in a suit barred by time. It was held that the decree was not a nullity where a court having jurisdiction to decide the matter wrongly or rightly decides it wrongly. There was no inherent lack of jurisdiction. In support of the same assertion Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh v. Devireddi Nagi Reddi AIR 1962 AP 479 (FB) was also cited. None of these cases is in point. 18. In the instant case there is no order of appointment of guardian by Assistant Consolidation Officer. Admittedly Prasidh Narain was not natural guardian of the minor at the time of filing the compromise. He was simply a defeat guardian who had no right to transfer the property of minor to Deo Narain as was held in Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ghazipur 1970 AWR 79. In that case also a defacto guardian of a Hindu minor had transferred the share of a minor in agricultural land. It was held that such transfer was void and violated Sections 8 and 11" of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Such compromise without permission to compromise the sale by the legal guardian was not given effect to vide Manzoor v. Jamaluddin 1969 RD 235. 19. A similar view was held in Al. Vr. St. Ramanathan Chettiar v. Al. Vr. St. Veerappa Chettiar AIR 1956 Mad 59 which observed: (c) Code of Civil Procedure. (1908), 32, Rule 7--Compromise without permission. Unless the Court grants permission there is no compromise at ail so far as the minors are concerned and there is therefore nothing on which a decree can be passed. 20. I respectfully agree with the said observations. 21. In Ram Sukh and Others Vs. (1908), 32, Rule 7--Compromise without permission. Unless the Court grants permission there is no compromise at ail so far as the minors are concerned and there is therefore nothing on which a decree can be passed. 20. I respectfully agree with the said observations. 21. In Ram Sukh and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow in Camp at Fiazabad and Others, AIR 1971 All 352 such composition, was arrived at without appointment of a legal guardian under Rule 14, Sub-clause (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules (1954), it was held that non-observance of the said rule vitiated the order itself. 22. In Ram Chandra Arya Vs. Man Singh and Another, AIR 1968 SC 954 there was a decree against lunatic without appointment of guardian. It was held that such decree was a nullity and a sale held in execution of that decree was void ab initio. It was observed at page 955: It is now a well settled principle that, if a decree is passed against a minor without appointment of a guardian, the decree is a nullity and is void and not merely voidable. 23. This principle applies with full force in the instant case also where during the minority of the Plaintiff no legal guardian was appointed by the Consolidation authorities concerned and such compromise was simply void. The other considerations that in some other plots minor also got some benefits are simply irrelevant and could not validate such void compromise. 24. In the result the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and decree are set aside and judgment and decree of trial court are restored. Costs of this Court shall be easy. Appeal allowed.