Kanchamalai Pathar vs Ry. Shahaji Rajah Sahib (Deceased) And ... on 2 October, 1935
The minor sons have been impleaded in the suit itself but they were represented by a Court-guardian and not by the father On the transfer of the decree for execution to another court, the former Court-guardian could not take steps to protect their interests; this is apparently why their Lordships say on p. 646 'there was no effective representation of the infant heir ' see also Fani v. Surendra (1921) 35 C.L.J. 9 and Kuppuswami Aiyangar v. Bavaswami Rao (1926) I.L.R. 50 Mad. 357 I may also point out that in that case the application itself had been filed under Section 311, Civil Procedure Code,, and as their Lordships were satisfied as to the proof of 'substantial injury' it was unnecessary for them to consider whether the minor would have been entitled to relief independently of Section 311.