Judgment Pritam Pal, J. 1. Heard on the point of admission of this appeal. 2. Without going into the details, suffice it to say that Ajmer Kaur, Plaintiff-respondent No. 1, widow of Manohar Singh, had filed a suit for possession of the disputed property on the basis of inheritance of her husband-Manohar Singh, who died in the year 1995. In her suit she had aiso challenged a family Will dated 18.12.1994 in favour of defendant-respondent No. 9 Bhupinder Singh and appellant Yadwinder Singh. They both were impleaded as defendants before the learned trial Court through their mother and father respectively, Ultimately, the suit field by Ajmer Kaur, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was decreed and then the appeal field by Yadwinder Singh only through his mother Jaswinder Singh, was also dismissed. 3. Now the sole contention raised before this Court is that in fact, a legal error had been committed by the learned trial Court as no permission was granted to implead Bhupinder Singh and appellant Yadwinder Singh, the aforesaid minors, through Smt. Rani and Shri Raghubir Singh, respectively, through whom they (minors) were impleaded as defendants. In support of his this argument, reliance was also placed on Shri Gurpreet Singh v. Shri Chatlerbhuj Goel A.I.R. Punj. & Mary. 95 : 1991 P.L.J. 570. 4. After going through the facts of the aforesaid ruling, it is made out that the facts contained therein are quite at variance from the facts of the case in hand, inasmuch as, here, in the instant case, Bhupinder Singh, defendant-respondent No. 9 was impieaded through Smt. Rani, who is his mother, whereas, Yadwinder Singh, appellant was impleaded in me trial Court through his father Raghubir Singh. In the given facts and circumstances, no one could be the better well-wisher of the minors than heir natural guardians, who are admittedly mother and father of the aforesaid minors, respectively. It is also to add here that no-appeal was preferred on behalf of Bhupinder Singh before the first Appellate Court. However, it was only Yadwinder Singh, appellant herein, who filed the first appeal through his mother Jaswinder Kaur, that too was dismissed. 5. In the given situation of this case, it can be safely held that no prejudice was caused to the interest of appellant Yadwinder Singh by not formally granting the permission to be sued through his natural guardian. However, it was only Yadwinder Singh, appellant herein, who filed the first appeal through his mother Jaswinder Kaur, that too was dismissed. 5. In the given situation of this case, it can be safely held that no prejudice was caused to the interest of appellant Yadwinder Singh by not formally granting the permission to be sued through his natural guardian. In fact, the said minor Yadwinder Singh is proved to have been duly represented before the learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court by none else other than his father and mother respectively. 6. Keeping in view the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below which are not perverse or unreasonable and that no substantial question of law is involved in this Regular Second Appeal, hence the same is hereby dismissed.