JUDGMENT : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2013 passed in RA No.130 of 2011 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was defendant No.2, respondent No.1 was defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were the plaintiffs. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Narasaiah was the original propositus. He had two sons Nanjundaiah and Basappa. Nanjundaiah had a wife by name Gowramma. Nanjundaiah and Gowramma had two children i.e., Jayalakshmamma and Venkatalakshmamma, the plaintiffs. Bassapa had two wives, namely Narasamma-the first wife and Siddagangamma-the second wife. Basappa has a son by name Narasaiah through his second wife. 5. It is contended that Narasaiah inherited five immovable properties, which are described in the plaint as the suit schedule properties, as a result of devolution of coparcenary. Suit item Nos.2 to 4 have already been acquired for Adi Chunchangiri Trust and the compensation amount was apportioned under the suit. The plaintiffs and defendants are the members of a Hindu undivided family and the plaintiffs demanded for a partition and separate possession, but defendant No.1 refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 6. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the relationship between the parties and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of Nanjundaiah and Basappa. It is denied that the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of deceased Nanjundaiah. It is contended that defendant No.1 is the wife of Basappa. Since the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, the suit for partition and separate possession is not maintainable. 7. It is also contended that defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S. No.446 of 2002 for maintenance and during the pendency of the said suit, Basappa died. As such, it could not be further proceeded or prosecuted as, she herself is the legal heir. 8. 7. It is also contended that defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S. No.446 of 2002 for maintenance and during the pendency of the said suit, Basappa died. As such, it could not be further proceeded or prosecuted as, she herself is the legal heir. 8. It is also contended that defendant No.2 was a minor and was represented by next friend guardian Govindraju. He did not contest the said suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 9. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement admitting the plaint averments. It is contended that after the death of Nanjundaiah and Basappa, who are the brothers, all the parties to the suit have succeeded to the suit schedule properties and all the members to the suit are in joint possession of the same. Hence, on these grounds, prays to decree the suit. 10. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: i. Whether the plaintiffs prove their relationship with the defendants as narrated in the plaint? ii. Whether plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties, out of which suit schedule item No.2 to 4 have been acquired and compensation has been awarded? iii. Whether defendant No.1 proves that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? iv. Whether 1 st defendant proves that the contents of paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of her written statement? v. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as sought by them? vi. What order or decree? 11. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW.1 and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. 12. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined herself as DW1, examined one witness as DW2 and marked four documents as Exs.D1 to D4. 13. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 5 in the affirmative, issue No. 3 in the negative, issue No. 4 partly in the affirmative and issue No.5 as per the final order. 14. The suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed and it is declared that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for half a share in suit item Nos.1 and 5 of the suit schedule properties and they are also entitled for half a share in the compensation awarded for the acquisition of suit item Nos.2 to 4. 14. The suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed and it is declared that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for half a share in suit item Nos.1 and 5 of the suit schedule properties and they are also entitled for half a share in the compensation awarded for the acquisition of suit item Nos.2 to 4. In the remaining half portion of the suit properties, defendant Nos.2 is entitled to an equal share, along with defendant No.1, if he had paid the proper court fee. 15. Defendant No.1, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S. No. 225 of 2005, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.130 of 2011 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur. 16. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: i. Whether the trial Court has erred in holding that defendant No.2 is the son of Basappa through his second wife and as such entitled for 1/4 th share in the suit schedule properties? ii. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is arbitrary, perverse, not sustainable in law and liable to be interfered with? iii. What order? 17. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, answered point No.1 in the affirmative, point No.2 partly in the affirmative, and point No.3 as per the final order. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part with costs and the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.225 of 2005 dated 04.06.2011 was modified to the effect that defendant No.1 is entitled for half a share in the suit item Nos.1 and 5 and in the compensation awarded for acquisition of item Nos.2 to 4 properties. The judgment and preliminary decree passed by the trial Court insofar as granting 1/4 th share to defendant No.2 was set aside. 18. Defendant No.2, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.130 of 2011, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 19. Heard the learned counsel for defendant No.2 and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 20. Learned counsel for defendant No.2 submits that the plaintiffs have filed a suit against defendant No.2 when he was a minor. The guardian has not properly represented and contested the suit. He submits that the guardian has not at all entered the witness box. 19. Heard the learned counsel for defendant No.2 and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 20. Learned counsel for defendant No.2 submits that the plaintiffs have filed a suit against defendant No.2 when he was a minor. The guardian has not properly represented and contested the suit. He submits that the guardian has not at all entered the witness box. He submits that the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court against a minor is void. He submitted that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in modifying the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and set aside the decree passed in favour of defendant No.2. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 21. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs supports the impugned judgment and hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 22. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 submits that defendant No.1, during her lifetime executed a Will bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of Veeranna i.e., defendant No.1(a) – respondent No.1(a). Hence, on this ground, he prays to disposed of the appeal. 23. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 24. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in law in reversing the finding of the trial court and denying 1/4 th share to the second defendant in the suit schedule property?” Regarding the Substantial Question of Law 25. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants. It is contended that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties, out of which, suit schedule item Nos.2 to 4 have been acquired, and compensation was awarded. It is contended that the plaintiffs and the defendants are the members of a ‘Hindu Undivided Joint Family’ and no partition is effected. 26. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW-1 and got marked eight documents as Exhibits P1 to P8. 27. In rebuttal, the defendant No.1 examined herself as DW-1 and she reiterated the averments made in the written statement in the examination-in-chief and also produced four documents as Exhibits D1 to D4. 28. Defendant No.2 was a minor as of the date of filing the suit and was represented by his next friend/guardian one Sri.Govindaraju S/o.Ganganna. 27. In rebuttal, the defendant No.1 examined herself as DW-1 and she reiterated the averments made in the written statement in the examination-in-chief and also produced four documents as Exhibits D1 to D4. 28. Defendant No.2 was a minor as of the date of filing the suit and was represented by his next friend/guardian one Sri.Govindaraju S/o.Ganganna. The next friend of defendant No.2 neither filed a written statement nor led any evidence and has not properly participated in the suit. 29. A guardian for a minor in a suit is expected to represent the minor's liability diligently; if the guardian is found to be negligent, or has a conflicting interest or does not perform his/her duty, the Court can remove such a guardian and appoint another, if it is found that a minor's interest were prejudiced because the guardian was grossly negligent or failed to contest the suit effectively i.e., did not appear and did not file a proper defence or entered an unapproved compromise. 30. The First Appellate Court should have set aside the Trial Court's decree and remanded the matter for a fresh trial with a new competent guardian. A decree passed against a minor, where the minor was represented by a guardian, is considered voidable at the minor's option, not automatically void or a nullity. The minor, on attaining the majority, can challenge the decree. The Trial Court, without considering the said aspect, has decreed the suit against the minor. 31. Defendant No.1 aggrieved by the judgment and the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.225 of 2005 preferred an appeal in R.A. No.130 of 2011. The Appellate Court without considering that the guardian of a minor i.e., defendant No.2, has not properly represented defendant No.2, and has neither filed any written statement nor cross- examined any witnesses, before the Trial Court, has passed the impugned judgment without considering the said aspect and modified the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court against the minor, which is void. 32. As defendant No.2 had no opportunity to file the written statement in the suit pending before the Trial Court and also had no opportunity to participate in the appeal in R.A. No.130 of 2011, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are in violation of the principles of natural justice. 32. As defendant No.2 had no opportunity to file the written statement in the suit pending before the Trial Court and also had no opportunity to participate in the appeal in R.A. No.130 of 2011, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, on this ground alone, the impugned judgments are liable to be set-aside and the First Appellate Court committed an error in modifying the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the matter requires reconsideration by the Trial Court. 33. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative. 34. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned judgment and decree dated 17.03.2013, passed by the 1 st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in R.A. No.130 of 2011 and the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2011 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Tumakuru in O.S. No.225 of 2005 are hereby set aside; iii. The suit in O.S. No.225 of 2005 is restored to its original file. iv. Liberty is reserved to defendant No.2 to file the written statement, if any, within 30 days from the date of appearance. v. Thereafter, the Trial Court is directed to provide an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and thereafter, decide the suit in accordance with law. vi. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. vii. It is needless to state that this Court has not adjudicated the matter in issue. viii. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 12.01.2026 without awaiting for any further notice from the Court in this regard. ix. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.