Section 4 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), OXXXII, R 12 The Joint Property Partition was owned by the predecessor in favor of the property parties of the minority child-majority justice suit and the defendants sought the distribution of the same accused. Who claimed to have sued property. On the basis that he did not receive any share in the sale of the interest in the property owned by his predecessor, the suit property fell into that part, the defendant's parties also had the deceased brother's two minor daughters. The court had registered a case against him in the trial. The limitation of the minor daughters and the direction to distribute the property between the plaintiff and the minors and the rest of the litigation judges dismissed the case and the lower appellate court approved by the trial court upheld, but the Supreme Court upheld the amendment. Reversed the two concurrent results in the use of Under the plates raised by the defendants, the courts were in respect of O XXXII, R 12 CPC, that both were not juvenile IPs and were represented implicitly before the High Court as they had become important justification. So before the High Court was enraged and not taken before the Supreme Court, both the minor plaintiffs who had become important were summoned by the High Court to ensure that their opinion was met. Go Justice till the day when the statements of the plaintiff were recorded by the High Court, not only did they both get a majority but they were students of the postgraduate classes and they never raised any objection to their representation. Was,
