SUJAN SINGH Vs. LOCHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act was made by Thakur Sujan Singh and his sons on 17-4-1936, and a written statement was filed by them before the Special Judge on 16-8-1936. In this written statement they claimed the property in dispute in the present proceedings to belong to them. In due course notices under Section 9 were published on 23-12-1936. A claim under Section 11 of the Act was filed by Srimati Dhan Kunwar in respect of the property in dispute on the allegation that the property originally belonged to Kehri Singh, her husband, that upon his death it was inherited by her as a Hindu widow, that it was sold in execution of a decree against her and purchased 'benami' by Girwar Singh, father of Sujan Singh, appellant, that she paid the auction price and that she had been throughout in possession of the property. Before the objection could be decided Smt. Dhan Kunwar died on 12-10-1940, leaving Lochan Singh, a reversioner of Kehri Singh. On 26-10-1940, Lochan Singh filed a claim before the Special Judge and his case was that in addition to the ground taken by Smt. Dhan Kunwar that the property was purchased 'benami' by Girwar Singh, there was another ground on which his claim should be decreed, namely, that Smt. Dhan Kunwar was merely a life estate holder, and even if Girwar Singh purchased anything, he purchased merely the life estate of Dhan Kunwar, and his right came to an end on the death of Smt. Dhan Kunwar and the property reverted to the reversioner of Kehri Singh, that is, Lochan Singh claimant. Sujan Singh and his sons' reply was that Smt. Dhan Kunwar had become unchaste during the lifetime of her husband, and, therefore, did not inherit the property under the Hindu law, but that since she remained in possession of the property for over 12 years, she acquired an absolute interest therein and in execution sale against her the absolute interest in the property was purchased by Girwar Singh. Sujan Singh also pleaded that Lochan Singh, in any case, had no 'locus standi' to come in and file an objection under Section 11, Encumbered Estates Act, because he had no title to the property on the date of publication in the gazette under Section 9. It may be mentioned that Lochan Singh's claim having been made more than three months after the notice had been published in the Gazette under Section 9, he made an application for the extension of time on the ground that he could not have made the objection earlier. This application was allowed by the learned Special Judge. Ultimately he also allowed the claim of Lochan Singh and declared that the property in dispute was not liable to be attached and sold in satisfaction of the claims against Sujan Singh and others--landlord-appellants before us. Sujan Singh and others have now come up in appeal against his order and the only question raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that Lochan Singh could not maintain an independent claim in the Court below. The contention of the learned counsel is that in order to maintain a claim under Section 11 the claimant must be entitled to the property on the date of the publication of the notice under Section 9, and that any person who was not so entitled cannot file an objection under Section 11, though he may file a separate suit to establish his right to the property. Section 11 runs as follows:

(2.) THERE is no force in this appeal. It is dismissed with costs.