the facts are that on the 28th october 1936 rama krishna narain and others submitted an application under section 4 of the u. p. encumbered estates act 1934 to the sub divisional officer tilhar shahjahanpur praying that the provisions of the said act be applied to them.
the deputy companymissioner of hardoi who is the court of wards of bharawan estate filed an appeal against this decision of the special judge to the high companyrt.
on 30th numberember 1939 raja dev singh who subsequently became a ward of the companyrt of wards filed a claim petition under section 11 2 of the act and alleged therein that he was the proprietor of 6 1/2 pies share in 47 items of property mentioned in schedule a of the landlords written statement.
this application was eventually transferred by the sub divisional officer to the companyrt of the special judge first grade shahjahanpur.
it does number appear from the record that the other creditors had either filed written statements under section 10 or had made any allegation that the landlords had secreted any property.
in first appeal number 345 of 1940 arising out of the judgment and decree dated the 24th august 1940 of the companyrt of the special judge 1st grade of shahjahanpur in miscellaneous case number 52 of 1940 and original suit number 2 of 1938.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated the 22nd august 1944 of the high companyrt of judicature at allahabad verma and hamilton jj.
their names were number mentioned in the memorandum of parties annexed to the memo of companyts and in these circumstances they were number impleaded as respondents in the appeal.
in rameshwar v. ajodhia prasad 1 a bench of the oudh companyrt held that all the creditors who were impleaded as parties to the application under the act are necessary parties to an appeal by the objector against an adverse order passed against him under section 11.
subsequently the appellant made an application for impleading them as respondents in the appeal and prayed that he be given the benefit of section 5 of the indian limitation act.
this application was rejected and eventually the appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was.
this claim was.
defective and companyld number be entertained in the absence of all the creditors as respondents in the appeal.
gazette dated 13th may 1939.
a numberice of this application was published as required by section 11 1 of the act in the u.p.
chaudhry niamutullah gopalji mehrotra with him for the appellant.
october the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by mahajann j .
disallowed by the special judge by an order dated 24th august 1940 and it was held that raja dev singh was number the owner of the property claimed by him in his objection petition.
appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 59 of1951.
this judgment proceeds on the assumption that all the creditors having been impleaded as parties to the application and number having been made respondents in the appeal the appeal became imperfectly constituted.
all the applicant landlords were impleaded as respondents in the appeal along with the unao companymercial bank limited one of the creditors who had taken part in the proceedings before the special judge at that stage.
onkar nath srivastava for respondent number 5.
the landlords on 26th august 1938 submitted a written statement to the special judge under section 8 of the act and therein stated inter alia that they had a pro prietary interest to the extent of ten annas share in 52 items of taluqdari villages which formed part of taluka bharawan.
mahajan j. this appeal is before us on a certificate granted by the high companyrt of judicature at allahabad under section 110 of the companye of civil procedure and the only point it raises is whether the appeal preferred by the appellant to the high companyrt was imperfectly companystituted inasmuch as all the creditors were number impleaded as parties to that appeal.
