Bind Basni Prasad, J. - (1.) Today in the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellants made the following statement : "The land on which stands the three storied house No. 596/1 to 3 with two shops bounded as below : East--Shop No. 590/10 etc., West--Land of the Dargah, North--House No. 595, South-- Drummond Road, which property is described as item No. 9 in the written statement filed on behalf of the Dargah in Case No. 784 of 1936 before the Special Judge, 1st Grade, Agra, belongs to the Dargah, the landlord-applicant and the rights of creditors 1 to 8 in respect of that land are that of licensees and they are holding the land as licensees having built on it as licensees." Learned counsel for the respondent made the following statement: "In view of the fact that no lease was executed by the owner in favour of Sukhdeo, I concede that the position of Sukhdeo and his legal representatives, which expression includes creditors Nos. 1 to 8 (appellants in the appeal) is that of a licensee and not a lessee. This statement of mine refers to the land detailed by the learned counsel for the appellants in his statement. The respondents do not dispute the ownership of the appellants in respect of the building standing upon the aforesaid land."
(2.) In view of these statements the appeal is allowed in part. The appellants are declared to be the licensees of the land upon which the disputed building is situated, and the owners of that building. The order of the lower Court declaring Dargah Syed Shah Bazid Handi Mauquf as the owner of that land is upheld. Parties will bear their costs throughout. Cross-objection in First Appeal No. 438 of 1941
(3.) Creditors NOS. 1 to 8 preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 25-8-1941, passed by the learned Special Judge, 1st Grade, Agra. Upon this the landlord-applicant which is a Dargah filed a cross-objection on 7-4-1942. Sri Kirty who is representing one of the creditors, viz. Creditor No. 9, Bohrey Earn Gopal, raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the cross-objection. His contention is that there is no provision in chap. VI, U. P. Encumbered Estates Act about a cross-objection. Section 45 of that Act deals with appeals and Section 46 with revisions. Section 47 provides : "Except as provided in Sections 45 and 46, no proceedings of the Collector or Special Judge under this Act shall be questioned in any Court." The argument is that orders passed in proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act can be questioned only by appeals or revisions and not by cross-objections.;