Mukerji, J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision by certain creditors arising out of Encumbered Estates Act proceedings. The revision was filed under Section 46(1) of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act.
(2.) THE facts briefly stated were these: One Digambar Singh made an application under Section 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act. Under Section 8 of that Act he filed a written statement on the 20th of August, 1937. In that written statement he gave the particulars required of him. He also showed, in view of the provisions of Section 8(1)(c) of the Act, the nature and the extent of his property that was liable to attachment and sale under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. One of the items of the property shown by the debtor was a sum of money said to be due to him for arrears of profits for the years 1341 to 1344 Fasli from Srimati Basanti and Lala Budh Sen. It may be pointed out at this stage that Srimati Basanti and Lala Budh Sen were also creditors of the debtor Digambar Singh. It appears that Srimati Basanti and Lala Budh Sen took objections to this arrears of profits which were shown by the debtor as his assets. These creditors when they put in their claims under Section 10 of the Act, denied the existence of any claim in regard to arrears of profits. There was a publication of the two schedules in accordance with the provisions of Section 11(1) of the Encumbered Estates Act. It appears that in respect of these arrears no further dispute was raised by the creditor applicants before me. On the 12th of August, 1941, the learned Judge determined the matter, as he was bound to, under Section 11 of the Act and in that decision he said: It is proved that the property shown by the applicant in his written statement, as amended by publication dated 18th January, 1941, and also shown by Hanuman Prasad creditor, is the only property liable to sale under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There was, therefore, a determination by the Special Judge, however slipshod that decision may have been, in regard to the properties that were liable for the debts of the landlord applicant. On the 26th of October, 1941, a schedule of these properties was published in accordance with the rules.
(3.) ON the 3rd of December, 1943, an application was filed by Srimati Basanti and Lala Budh Sen for the amendment of the schedule, namely, the schedule that had been published after the decision under Section 11 had been made for deleting that item which related to the arrears of profits for 1341 to 1344 Fasli due from Srimati Basanti and Lala Budh Sen. The trial Judge dismissed this application on the same date on which it was made. The trial Judge said that the schedule having been prepared and published on the 26th of October, 1941, had become final as there had been no proper objections. An appeal was preferred to the Judge from the decision of the trial court by the present applicants. The learned Judge came to the conclusion - -and I think rightly - -that no appeal lay to him from the order of the trial court refusing to amend the schedule. The learned Judge, however, treated the appeal as a revision and allowed that revision in part by saying that the schedule would be amended to this extent that the profits which Were claimed in respect of year 1344 Fasli could not be claimable inasmuch as those profits had not accrued by the date when the claim in respect of them had been made on behalf of the landlord applicant. The learned Judge, therefore, in effect reduced the claim.;