SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition arises out of the orders passed in the suit filed under S. 176 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that Vishwambhar Singh, the respondent No. 10, filed suit for partition of the holding in question under S. 176/178/182 of the Act. The summons were issued but as there was no contest in the suit, a preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court on 31-10-1974 declaring the shares of the parties. The petitioner did not file appeal against the said decree and that became final. ( 3 ) ON 11-4-1978 the plaintiff filed an application for preparation of final decree before the trial Court in pursuance of the preliminary decree D/- 30-10-1974. The trial Court issued summons to all the defendants. The petitioners were served with this summons. The summons was also issued to Tej Singh, one of the defendants. The process server reported that Tej Singh is lunatic and his mother has received summons on his behalf. On 11-4-1979, the plaintiff moved an application to appoint Smt. Shiv Kali Devi, mother of Tej Singh as his guardian. It appears that the trial Court did not pass any specific order appointing Smt. Shiv Kali Devi, mother of Tej Singh as his guardian and further proceeded in the case and directed for preparation of the final decree. He directed to the lekhpal concerned to prepare lots for the purpose of preparation of final decree in accordance with the shares of the parties. The lekhpal submitted the lots. The trial court invited objections from the parties to the suit. The petitioners did not file any objections. The respondent No. 9 filed objection. The lots prepared by the lekhpal on 20-4-1979 were rejected on 23-8-1979 by the trial Court on the objection of respondent No. 9 and the Court further directed the lekhpal to submit fresh lots. ( 4 ) THE lekhpal on the basis of the order of the trial Court D/- 23-8-1979 again submitted fresh lots on 13-11-1979 and the trial Court invited objections from the parties on the said lots. On 28-11-1979 the petitioners filed objection against the lots proposed by the lekhpal on 13-11-1979. ( 4 ) THE lekhpal on the basis of the order of the trial Court D/- 23-8-1979 again submitted fresh lots on 13-11-1979 and the trial Court invited objections from the parties on the said lots. On 28-11-1979 the petitioners filed objection against the lots proposed by the lekhpal on 13-11-1979. On 9-2-1981, mother of Tej Singh, Smt. Shiv Kali Devi, filed an application before the trial Court stating therein that the lots as proposed by the lekhpal on 13-11-1979 be accepted. The trial Court after considering the objections of the petitioners, accepted the lots as proposed by the lekhpal and rejected the objections of the petitioners by order D/- 16-2-1981. The main objection of the petitioners was that Tej Singh was a lunatic and no order appointing guardian was passed by the Court, the decree is a nullity. The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the said objection. He took the view that merely because there was no specific order for appointment of a guardian, it was only an irregularity and the decree cannot be treated as nullity. The notice was served upon the mother of Tej Singh who was a natural guardian and she acted as a guardian on behalf of Tej Singh. The petitioner filed revision against the said order before the Commissioner Jhansi Division, Jhansi. The revision was dismissed by the Commissioner on 19-9-1983. They further filed revision before the Board of Revenue. It was dismissed by it on 23-1-1992. The petitioner has challenged these orders. ( 5 ) I have heard Sri S. K. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. S. Shrinet, Advocate for the respondent No. 10. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court had not appointed any person as guardian of Tej Singh and as such decree is a nullity. Tej Singh died during the pendency of the case. He is represented by his mother and the petitioner have impleaded her as respondent No. 6 in the name of Baikali Devi widow of Kamod Singh. She has no objection to the decree passed by the Courts below. The petitioners who were also the defendants in the suit, cannot agitate that they were prejudiced because the trial Court did not pass any specific order appointing mother of Tej Singh as guardian. She has no objection to the decree passed by the Courts below. The petitioners who were also the defendants in the suit, cannot agitate that they were prejudiced because the trial Court did not pass any specific order appointing mother of Tej Singh as guardian. A decree passed in the suit is binding against the other defendants and cannot be challenged on the ground that a person was not appointed as guardian of the minor or lunatic unless it is shown that the decree is indivisible. In the present case, the preliminary decree was passed on 31-10-1974. The petitioners did not file any appeal against the said decree and that has become final. The proceedings thereafter started for preparation of the final decree in the year 1978. The lekhpal prepared lots. The lots were to be allotted to the parties to the suit. One lot was to be allotted to Tej Singh who was alleged to be lunatic. The mother of Tej Singh gave consent to the lots prepared by the lekhpal. The petitioners were not prejudiced at all. The objection as to the appointment of the guardianship was to be taken by Tej Singh or any guardian on his behalf. The petitioner himself had impleaded respondent No. 6 the mother of Tej Singh in a memo of revision filed before the Commissioner and also in memo of revision filed before the Board of Revenue as guardian of Tej Singh. The objection of the petitioners that the decree was a nullity because trial Court had not passed any order for appointment of the guardian is not available to the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the guardian is not appointed of a lunatic, the decree is nullity. He placed reliance upon a decision in Ram Chandra Arya v. Mann Singh, AIR 1968 SC 954 : (1968 All LJ 545) wherein Supreme Court observed :-"it is now a well-settled principle that, if a decree is passed against a minor without appointment of a guardian, the decree is nullity and is void and not merely voidable. This principle becomes applicable to the case of a lunatic in view of R. 15 of O. 32 of the Civil P. C. " ( 8 ) IN this case the decree was challenged on behalf of a lunatic. This principle becomes applicable to the case of a lunatic in view of R. 15 of O. 32 of the Civil P. C. " ( 8 ) IN this case the decree was challenged on behalf of a lunatic. It was held that the decree passed against the lunatic was a nullity. In the present case the decree is not being challenged on behalf of Tej Singh who is alleged to be lunatic. ( 9 ) MOREOVER, in the present case Tej Singh was duly represented by his mother. It was not a case of non-representation. The plaintiff had also filed an application for appointment of his mother as a guardian of Tej Singh. It appears the trial Court did not pass any specific order but permitted her to represent Tej Singh. She had filed application stating that she has no objection to the lots prepared by lekhpal. It was in the interest of Tej Singh that property be allotted to him on partition. ( 10 ) IT is settled law that if a minor or lunatic is effectively represented and no prejudice is shown to have been caused, the absence of formal order of Court appointing guardian shall not vitiate the proceedings. In Nirmal Chandra Ray v. Khandu Ghose, AIR 1965 Cal 562 , the Court observed as follows :-"the doctrine of substantial representation is a matter of substance and not of form, where a minor was effectively represented in a snit by a guardian, although not formally appointed, and suffered no prejudice on account of the informality, the absence of a formal order of appointment of guardian is not fatal to the suit. " ( 11 ) THIS principle has been consistently followed in Ram Rekha v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1926 All 545, Brij Kishore Lal v. Satya Narain Lal, AIR 1954 All 599 : (1954 All LJ 443); Rangammal v. Appasami Raghavan, AIR 1973 Mad 12 , Chatar Bhuj Goel v. Gurpreet Singh, AIR 1983 Punj and Har 406. ( 12 ) THE petitioners have not alleged that respondent No. 6 was not a guardian of Tej Singh or she did not effectively represent his case or her interest was in any way adverse to Tej Singh who was her son. ( 13 ) THE present writ petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.