viz., second petitioner in CMP(MD)No.13357 of 2023 was representing them as guardians. However, since their father was not protecting their interest properly, the Court appointed one Mr.K.Boopathy as their Court guardian. However, it is stated that the Court guardian also did not protect their interest. It is also further contended that in the written statement filed by their father, it has been stated that the suit property belonged to him and his brother, who is the first petitioner in CMP(MD)No.13357 of 2023, which is totally contrary to truth, because the business being carried on was the family business and only out of the income generated from the said business, several properties were purchased and that their uncle – the first petitioner in CMP(MD)No.13357 of 2023 did not have any independent source of income and that the minors had a share in the suit property and alleging that their father as well as their uncle had acted behind their back and contested the suit and all this came to be known to them, only when they enquired with their father, uncle as well as their cousins, who were children of the first petitioner in CMP(MD)No.13357 of 2023. It is further stated that the Court guardian simply adopted the arguments of the second defendant, viz., their father, and they have taken steps to challenge the decree thereafter. It is also further stated that copy application given to the
