JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.9.83 passed by Sri J.N. Rajan, Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, confirming the order dated 16.2.81 passed by Sri K.K. Sinha S.D.O. Karwi district Banda in a case u/s 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. 2. The facts of the case are that Vishambhar Singh filed a suit for partition of the holding u/s 176/178/182 of the Act against Tej Singh and 8 others. The suit was decreed ex parte on 31.10.74. Thereafter proceedings for preparation of the final decree were started on the application of Vishambhar Singh on 14.7.78. During the course of the proceedings, defendants 6, 7 and 8 raised objection against the proceedings of the final decree. The learned trial court rejected the objection on 16.2.81. This led to a revision before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Commissioner dismissed the revision on 19.9.83. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri Ratan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the defendant was minor and no guardia was appointed. He was also lunatic and so the decree passed against him is a nullity. Reliance has been placed on 1958 AWR 626 , 1988 RJ 284, 1953 RD 252 and 253 and 1976 RD 50. Sri B. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the party is not prejudiced by the decree as the preliminary decree was not challenged in appeal or revision. He has also submitted that since the person i.e. the minor defendant has already died, no purpose will be served if the decree is annulled. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on AIR 1954 Alld. 9. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. The only question to be determined in the case is whether a decree passed against a lunatic person is a nullity. The fact of Tej Singh being a lunatic is not disputed. Even Vishambhar Singh has admitted in his affidavit dated 11.6.79 that Tej Singh is of unsound mind and that his mother looks after his property. The only question to be determined in the case is whether a decree passed against a lunatic person is a nullity. The fact of Tej Singh being a lunatic is not disputed. Even Vishambhar Singh has admitted in his affidavit dated 11.6.79 that Tej Singh is of unsound mind and that his mother looks after his property. The learned Commissioner has dismissed the revision on the ground that since Tej Singh was duly represented through his mother, a natural guardian who had filed an application to the effect that the lots' prepared were accepted to her, no prejudice was caused to Tej Singh and that the decree cannot be set aside merely on the ground that no formal order for appointment of guardian was passed. In support of his view, he has taken into consideration the rulings reported in AIR 1932 Alld. 1293, AIR 1954 Alld. 9. He has also referred to AIR 1951 SC 280 and AIR 1961 MP 37 . I have respectfully gone through these rulings. It has been held in AIR 1961 MP 37 that the objection is open to minor only and not to those who are not minors. 5. The view taken by the Hon'ble Alld. High Court in 1932 Alld. 293 is that even if there is no formal order of appointment of a guardian, the decree would be binding upon him if he is sufficiently represented and if his interests are well protected. Similar view has been taken by the same court in AIR 1954 Alld. 599, that if some formalities for the, appointment of guardian have not been observed but if the guardian has agreed to act as guardian and has done something in the suit to show that he accepted his appointment as guardian, the mere fact that some formalities were overlooked or not observed or there was no formal order of appointment, would not vitiate the proceedings or would not affect the result of the suit provided there has been no prejudice to the minor. 6. The Board of Revenue, Allahabad have taken different views in the appointment of guardian. 6. The Board of Revenue, Allahabad have taken different views in the appointment of guardian. It has been held by the Board in 1958 RD 252 that failure to appoint a guardian ad liten for a minor defendant in a suit renders it inoperative and the whole proceeding is void ab-initio The Board has taken similar view in 1988 RD 284 that the cases obtained against a minor without appointing a guardian is nullity. The question was also examined in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Chand Arya v. Mangali and another 1968 AWR 626. A full Bench consisting of the Hon'ble JC. Shah, Ramaswamy and V. Bhargava JJ. has held that 'a decree against lunatic without appointment of a guardian is a nullity and is void and not merely voidable. Their Lordships have observed that 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. This principle becomes applicable to the case of a lunatic in view of Rule 15 of Order XXXII of the CPC so that the decree obtained against Ram Lal was a decree which has to be treated as without jurisdiction and void. 7. It appears from the record that Vishambhar Singh filed a suit u/Sec. 176/178/182 of the Act and summons wore issued to the defendant for 2.5.74. On the summons of Tej Singh, the process server reported that Tej Singh defendant was lunatic. So, one part of the summons was affixed on the door. The learned trial court found, the service sufficient and passed ex parte decree on 31.10.74. In persuance of the ex parte order, preliminary decree was prepared on 1.11.74. But no step for appointment of guardian of the lunatic was taken. On 11.4.79, Vishambhar Singh moved an application and affidavit contending that Tej Singh was of unsound mind. But no order for the appointment of guardian was passed. However, it is a fact that Smt. Sheokali, mother of Tej Singh moved an application on 7.2.81 admitting the lots prepared by the Lekhpal. She had also alleged that the defendants 6, 7 and 8 who had no concern with Tej Singh were stumbling block to the determination of the share. It has also been admitted during the course of argument that Tej Singh has already died. She had also alleged that the defendants 6, 7 and 8 who had no concern with Tej Singh were stumbling block to the determination of the share. It has also been admitted during the course of argument that Tej Singh has already died. 8. It is obvious from the facts of the case that no formal order was passed. No prejudice was caused to Tej Singh and was duly represented. The ruling reported in 1968 AWR 626 is not of any help to the revisionist because there is no mention of any representation on behalf of the lunatic Ram Lal. The facts of the case under reference and the facts of the instant case are therefore, quite different. I am, therefore, satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the learned Commissioner in dismissing the revision. 9. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed.