JUDGMENT
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows: Bhagelu brought a suit against Musammat D harm a .for restitution of conjugal rights, and, as Musammat Dharma was a minor, her uncle Sampat was made guardian ad litem. The trial court decreed the suit. An appeal was filed in the lower appellate court on behalf of the minor by the minor’s father Manbodh. There had been no order removing Sampat from guardianship. The lower appellate court commented on the fact that although Sampat had been appointed guardian ad litem in the lower court, the appeal had been filed through Manbodh. In the result the court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.
2. On appeal before us it has been urged that there was no valid appeal before the lower appellate court, and our attention was called to the recent decision of a Bench of this Court in Shambhu v. Kanhaya (1922) I.L.R. 44 All. 619 which is exactly in point. It was there held that where a guardian ad litem to a minor defendant has once been appointed, such appointment continues for the whole of the lis or until it is revoked by court, and the guardian so appointed is the only person who call file an appeal on behalf of the minor. That decision follows several other decisions of this Court which are mentioned in the course of the judgment, and also a Madras case. It seems to us that we are bound to follow this course of decisions. It may be that the defendant has a remedy open to her as suggested in the case of Bawan Das v. Bishnath Weekly Notes 1899 p. 203. We allow the appeal, following the decisions of this Court, and setting aside the decree of the court below restore that of the first court. We make no order as to costs.
