Db Sampayo
. J.
Rupaainghev. Fernando
The Commissioner has on the evidence held that the deed infavour of the plaintiff was executed merely to defraud Stephen'screditors, and I see no reason to disturb that finding. With regardto the judgment in the previous case, the Commissioner has heldthat, if the judgment is invalid for the reasons stated, the propercourse is to take steps in that case to have it set aside, and not toraise the question incidentally in this action. This view, so far atleast as the added defendants, who are Stephen’s representatives,are concerned, is, in my opinion, quite sound. It is section 480 ofthe Civil Procedure Code that should be availed of for that purpose.But Mr. A. St. Y. Jayawardene, for the plaintiff, contends that asthe plaintiff would have no status in that action, he should be allowedin this action to impeach the validity of the judgment, and he citesCornells v. Carolis1 and Pedrupillai v. Manuel.2 These decisionswere concerned with the question whether it was open, in an actionunder section 247 of the Code, for the claimant in execution toimpeach the decree sought to be executed on the ground of fraudand collusion, and the question was answered in the affirmative.The Indian decisions on that point are conflicting. See Gulibai v.Jagannath Galvankar3 and Naranayyan v. Nageswarayyan* What-;ever may be the'right view with regard to a judgment obtained byfraud and collusion, X do not think that the analogy of the decisionsrelied on applies to a judgment entered against a minor. When ajudgment is found to be obtained by fraud and collusion, it must betaken to be void ab initio. and there is, therefore, nothing to executeas against a claimant from the ostensible judgment-debtor. Thecharacter of a judgment against a minor is substantially different Evenif the* judgment-debtor is found to be a minor, it does not followthat the judgment is ipso facto void. In Muttu Menika v.Muttu Menikas I had occasion to consider the law relatingto the subject, and I came to the conclusion that a judgment enteredagainst a minor, though unrepresented by a guardian, was at mostan irregularity, and that it would stand as a valid adjudicationuntil reversed, and was not open to a collateral attack. X have noreason now to consider that opinion to be wrong. I therefore thinkthat the judgment in the previous case remains as a valid andexecutable judgment even as regards the plaintiff.
The appeals are dismissed, with costs.
Appeals dismissed.
1 (1912) 6 Leader Rep. 94.81. L. R. 10 Bom. 659.
* (1917) 4. G. W. R. 356.* I. L. R 17 Mad 3$9.
5 (1915) 18 N. L. R. 510.