LexDEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HARDOI versus RAMA KRISHNA NARAIN AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1953 Habub Mohammad v. Thi Slate of Hyderabad. 1953 Oct. SJ 5CX5 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] the court was fully seized of the case and by then the sanction had been given. Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Agent for the appellant: Rajinder Narain. Agent for the respondent : G. H. Rajadhyaksha. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HARDOI ti. RAMA KRISHNA NARAIN AND OTHERS. lMEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MuKHERJEA and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.] U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934, s. 11 (2)-Proceedings under s. 11(2)-Appeal from order rejecting claim-Creditors who did not take active steps-Whether necessary parties. Creditors who did not take an active part in the proceedings are not necessary parties to an appeal from an order rejecting a claim made in a proceeding under section 11 (2) of the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934. The technical rules of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the impleading of parties should not be applied to such proceedings. The matter should be Yiewed in a more liberal way, regard being always had to the fact that there is no collusion betv.reen the debtor and the claimant. Rameshwar v. Ajodhia Prasad (A.I.R. 1941 Oudh 580), Chaudhri Bishunath Prasad v. Sarju Saran Tewar (A.I.R. 1942 Oudh 16), Lakshmi Narain v. Satgurnath (A.LR. 1942 Oudh 339) and Benam Bank Ltd. v. Bhagwandas (A.LR. 1947 All. 18) overruled. APPELLATE JuR1smcTION: Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1951. Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 22nd August, 1944, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Verma and Hamilton JJ.) in First Appeal No. 345 of 1940 arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 24th August, 1940, of the Court of the Special Judge, 1st Grade of Shahjahanpur in Miscellaneous Case No. 52 of 1940 and Original Suit No. 2 of 1938. Chaudhry Niamutuallah ( Gopalji Mehrotra, with him) for the appellant. Onkar Nath Srivastava for respondent No. 5. 1953. October 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J. • SUPREME COURT REPORTS 507 MAHAJAN J.-This appeal is before us on a certifi- <:ate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under section 110 of the Code of Civil Pro- cedure and the only point it raises is whether the appeal preferred by the appellant to the High Court was imperfectly constituted, inasmuch as all the creditors were not impleaded as parties to that appeal. 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, Shahjahan- pur, praying that the provisions of the said Act be applied to them. This application was eventually transferred by the sub-divisional officer to the court of the special judge, first grade, Shahjahanpur. 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. A notice of this application was published as required by section 11(1) of the Act in the U.P. ·Gazette dated 13th May, 1939. On 30th November, 1939, Raja Dev Singh, who subsequently became a ward of the Court of Wards, filed a claim petition under section 11 (2) of the Act and alleged therein that 'he was the proprietor of 6! pies share in 47 items of property mentioned in schedule (A) of the landlords' written statement. This claim was disallowed by the ·special judge by an order dated 24th August, 1940, and it was held that Raja Dev Singh was not the ·owner of the property claimed by him in his objection petition. The Deputy Commissioner of Hardoi who is the Court of Wards of Bharawan estate filed an appeal :against this decision of the special judge to the High ·Court. All the applicant-landlords were impleaded as respondents in the appeal along with the U nao Commercial Bank Ltd., one of the creditors who had taken part in the proceedings before the special judge at that stage. It does not appear from the record that the other creditors had either filed written statements 1953 bejnit) Commis.riontr, Hardoi v. Ramd Krishna Narain and Others. Mahajan J. 1953 - Deputy Commissioner, Hardoi v. Rama Krishna Narain and ~others. 'Mahajan]. 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1954} under section 10
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.