JUDGMENT

1. This is a creditor's appeal under Section 45, Encumbered Estates Act, against the order of the Special Judge, First Grade, District Bara Banki, dismissing his claim with costs. Munshi Murlidhar held a decree for a sum of Rs. 1470-11-0 and costs against Pandit Pyare Lal Pande Taluqdar. The estate of the judgment-debtor was taken under the superintendence of the Court of Wards and the notification required by Section 17, U.P. Court of Wards Act, was issued on 31st March 1931, and published in the U.P. Gazette on 11th April 1931. The creditor notified his claim and it was accepted by the Board of Revenue for a sum of Rs. 1604-11-0 (vide Ex. 1-A, a letter of the Deputy Commissioner of Bara Banki dated 29th March 1932) Munshi Murlidhar died in April 1934 and was succeeded by his widow Mt. Basanti Devi. Thereafter, an application under, Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, was made by the Deputy Commissioner, in charge of the Court of Wards, on 25th November 1935, and in this application Mt. Basanti Devi's decree was admitted as a subsisting debt. After the application had been forwarded to the Special Judge by the Collector under Section 6 the Deputy Commissioner in charge of the estate filed the written statement under Section 8, Encumbered Estates Act, and in this written statement also the decree in favour of Mt. Basanti Devi was admitted as a subsisting debt. Mt. Basanti Devi filed her claim on the basis of the said decree under Section 9, Encumbered Estates Act, on 25th April l936, after obtaining a certificate as required by Section 21(a), U.P. Court of Wards Act, from the Deputy Commissioner of Bara Banki. In the replication filed by the Court of Wards on 14th September 1936 the debt was again admitted to be subsisting.

2. During the pendency of these encumbered estates proceedings negotiations were carried on between the Court of Wards and the decree-holder for payment of the decree and it appears that in February 1937 it was agreed upon that Rs. 1600 would be paid and accepted in full satisfaction of the decree. A cheque for the amount seems to have been drawn up by the Court of Wards the same day, which was cancelled later on. An application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil P.C., was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Bara Banki, in charge of the estate for the amendment of his application dated 25th November 1935, as well as the replication dated 14th September 1936, on the allegation that the claim under the decree mentioned above was barred by time and the name of Munshi Murlidhar should be deleted from the list of creditors. The learned Special Judge allowed the application and held that the execution of the decree had become barred by time before the application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, was made, and dismissed the claim. It appears that after the order passed by the Court below Mt. Basanti Devi died and the present appellant has appealed as the legal representative of the decree-holder.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that (1) the execution of the decree was not barred before the order passed by the Collector under Section 6, Encumbered Estates Act, (2) that it was not open to the respondent to go back upon the settlement dated 23rd February 1937, and the amendment asked for should not have been allowed by the Court below, (3) that after admitting the claim of the creditor under Section 19, Court of Wards Act, the respondent was under a statutory liability to discharge the debt out of the estate, (4) that there can be no question of limitation after the admission of the claim as is clear from the provisions of Section 52, U.P. Court of Wards Act, and that the appellant cannot be put in a worse position during the continuance of the superintendence of the Court of Wards than if the estate were released now. As regards the first point, i.e. the question whether an application for the execution of the decree was barred by time before the order passed under Section 6 or the appli