Maclean, C.J:— I think this appeal must succeed upon one short point, namely, that the Plaintiffs cannot succeed because they have not brought before the Court all the parties who are liable to pay the rent. In this case the rent was created by a putni pottah, the date of which is not given but the effect of which is stated in the first paragraph of the plaint. The interest under that putni pottah subsequently became vested in the two first Defendants as mutwallis. I have always regarded a mutwalli as a trustee. One of these mutwallis is a minors he is a Defendant but no guardian ad litem has been appointed on his behalf for the purposes of this suit. It is found that the summons was not properly served upon him. An objection was taken at the hearing that Defendant No. 2, the minor, was a necessary party to the suit, and that he was not properly represented before the Court. He had not been properly served and it appeared that no guardian ad litem had been appointed on his behalf. Even then if the Plaintiffs, in order to save the suit, had asked the Court to allow it to stand over for a short time to enable a guardian to be properly appointed and proper notice to be served on Defendant No. 2, such an application would possibly have been granted. But they did not do that. I consider it essential that both the mutwallis who are the persons liable to pay the rent should be before the Court, and as they were not before the Court the view taken by the Court of first instance is right and the suit fails.
Other points of some nicety were raised, but I need not go into them.
Both the appeals are allowed with costs and the suits dismissed with costs.
Geidt, J.—I agree.
N.G
Appeal allowed.