Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This second appeal has been admitted on the sole question of law whether a decree of the first appelate court was null and void, in so far as it was passed against minors, they having not been impleaded through natural guardian or through any guardian appointed ad litem. So the decree passed is a nullity. This substantial question of law was framed by order dated 12th March 1987. However, on perusal of the decree of the lower appellate court it transpires that respondent no. 1 was Dhanu Kuer, wife of Ishar Singh, deceased. In this appeal, it has been submitted that appellant Nos. 3 to 6 and 7 were minors and they were represented by one Ishar Singh and, after his death, no guardian was appointed by the court nor they were referred to under the guardianship of any of their relations. So the entire decree passed by the appellate court was a nullity. I find that appellant nos. 3 to 6 before this Court are appellant no. 3 Ambika Singh son of Babulal Singh, appellant no. 4 Shakuntala Devi, who is major before this Court, appellant no. 5 Maiti Kuer, appellant no. 6 Lalti Kuer and appellant no. 7 Kanti Kuer are minor daughters of Babulal Singh. There were the respondents in the lower appellate court and I find that all the respondents in the lower appellate court were shown under the guardianship of Ishar Singh. But Dhanu Kuer wife of Ishar Singh was shown to be the widow of Ishar Singh. So it is apparent that the decree was passed against some minors who were respondents in the lower appellate court and they are appellants before this court. 2. Now the question is whether the. entire appellate decree is bad in law or the decree passed against the minors was invalid. I am of the considered opinion that if the decree passed by the first appellate court was against some minors respondents, the decree was null and void only against the minors and not against all the respondents. Besides the above, I find that in the lower appellate court itself, Mathura Singh, one of the sons of Babulal was very much respondent (respondent no. 3), mother of minor daughters and son of Babulal Singh was also one of the respondents in the first appellate court. Besides the above, I find that in the lower appellate court itself, Mathura Singh, one of the sons of Babulal was very much respondent (respondent no. 3), mother of minor daughters and son of Babulal Singh was also one of the respondents in the first appellate court. So I am further of the opinion that the interest of the minor daughters and son of Babulal Singh shall be protected by the mother and brother. In this view of the matter, also, the entire decree passed by the first appellate court shall not be dubbed as nullity. 3. With this observation, this appeal is disposed of because the appeal was admitted on the sole substantial question of law on the minority of some of the appellants, as referred to above, without their respresentation through natural guardian or guardian appointed by the court.