JUDGMENT

1. These are appeals from two decrees of the Special Judge first grade Bara Banki allowing two objections made by the respondents in both the appeals under Section 11, Encumbered Estates. Act. The objectors in the two oases were different but the applicants under Section 4 were the same. Each set of respondents preferred an objection under Section 11. The applicants have filed these two appeals, No. 121 of 1938 against one set of objectors and the other appeal No. 122 against the other set. Counsel for the respondents in appeal No. 121 was not present when the appeal was heard but the counsel for the parties were present in the other appeal. The point involved in both the appeals is the same. The lower Court has held that as the appellants-applicants were not entered in the khewats over the property claimed by the objectors, they could not claim it and it has allowed the objections. We are unable to affirm the judgment of the lower Court. The learned Judge has relied on Section 4 and the rule framed by the Local Government under it. Section 4 provides that any landlord who is subject to or whose immovable property or any part thereof is encumbered with private debts may make an application in writing to the Collector of the district in which his land or any portion of his land is situated stating the amount of such private debts and also his public debts both decreed and undecreed and request that the provisions of the Act be applied to him. The rule made under this Act provides that the applicant should furnish a copy of the most recent khewat. The learned Judge has inferred from the section and the rule that the intention of the Legislature is that only property over which the name of the applicant stands should be brought into the hotchpot in proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act. We are unable to draw that inference. There is no provision in the Encumbered Estates Act that only that property be considered to be of the applicant over which his name stands. It was held in Anant Prasad v. Yusuf Husain ('39) 1939 R.D. 5 that for the validity of an application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, it is enough if the applicant files khewats showing that he is entitled under Section 2(g) of the Act to sue as a landlord and it is not obligatory on him for the prima facie satisfaction of the Collector, that he is entitled to apply under the Act, to exhaust the list of his property at that stage, it being necessary only when the stage of Section 8 is reached that the fullest disclosure has to be made of the extent of the property, of the extent of the debts and the names of the creditors and if any property is concealed at this stage, the special Judge may take suitable action because it would be an infringement of an obligation that lay on him under Section Section 8. Section 8, Encumbered Estates Act, provides that the applicant should give the nature and extent of his proprietary rights in land. There is no restriction that he has to mention only that property over which his name stands in the khewats. He is under a statutory obligation to disclose all his property. We are, therefore, of opinion that Section 4 or the rule made under it does not support the view taken by the learned Judge.

2. The other ground taken by the learned Judge is that the Encumbered Estates Act does not contemplate or countenance that the applicant be given an opportunity to raise anew or revive dead claims the title to which was lost to his ancestors or to him long ago. There can be cases in which a man may have quite recently acquired title to some property but his name may not be entered in the khewat, a man may have purchased property in an auction sale but he may not have got his name entered in the khewat. If he mentions that property in his application under Section 4 he will not be raising anew claims or reviving dead ones. This reasoning of the learned Judge does not appeal to us at all. d The other reasoning given by him is th