KAURAN DEVI Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 24-3-1995 :-

(2.) Facts, relevant for the disposal of the appeal, may be noticed. Appellant Kauran Devi and pro forma respondents No. 8 to 13, all of them hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 14-2-1978, passed by the Assistant Collector I-Grade, S.D.O. (Civil), under the provisions of Redemption of Mortgages (Himachal Pradesh) Act, 1971, thereby ordering redemption of the mortgage of certain immovable property in favour of respondents No. 1 to 7, who were impleaded as defendants, was illegal, void and liable to be set aside, on account of two of the plaintiffs, namely Kauran Devi, the present appellant, and pro forma respondent No. 9 Amar Nath, being minor at the time when the application for redemption was moved and though they were named as respondents in that application and their mother Smt. Rupan Devi was shown to be their guardian in the cause title, they were never represented by said Rupan Devi nor had the respondents/defendants applied for appointment of any other guardian ad litem of those minor plaintiffs.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 to 7/contesting defendants did not deny that the present appellant and Amar Nath were minor when the application was moved, but alleged that their mother Rupan Devi had been duly served and since Rupan Devi was named as their guardian, it could not be said that the minors were not duly represented. However, it was not denied that Rupan Devi had not put in appearance. It may be stated that Rupan Devi, besides having been named as the guardian of the appellant and respondent Amar Nath, was Impleaded as respondent in that application in her personal capacity also,