JUDGMENT Malik, C.J. - One Gur Dayal died leaving a son Kishan Murari who died in the year 1925, On the death of Kishan Murari, the property was inherited by the mother of Kishan Murari, Mt. Shiama. On Mt. Shiama's death, dispute arose between Ram Babu, a collateral, and Mt. Sahodra, step-sister of Kishan Murari, as to who was the owner of the property. Ram Babu filed a suit on the ground that he was the next reversioner and was entitled to the property by right of inheritance. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 13th September 1933, and it was held that the step-sister was no heir under the amendment to the Hindu law made by the Act of 1929. There was an appeal to this Court and during the pendency of the appeal Ram Babu filed an application under the Encumbered Estates Act on 8th April 1936. In the Encumbered Estates proceeding the property left by Gur Dayal was shown as belonging to the landlords applicants. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 13th April 1987, and it was on 10th July 1937 after 'the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court that notices were published under S. 11, Encumbered Estates Act. On publication of these notices, any person having any claim to the property mentioned in such notice has the right to apply to the Special Judge, within three months from the date of the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette, stating his claim and the Special Judge has to determine whether the property specified in the claim, or any part thereof, is liable to attachment, sale or mortgage in satisfaction of the debts of the applicant. It is further provided that if the claim under S. 11, sub-s. (2) is not made within three months, the claimant may satisfy the Special Judge that he bad sufficient cause for not making his application within the period provided and the Special Judge may condone the delay, provided the property included in the claim has not been transferred to any person under the provisions of Ss. 24, 25, 28 or 31 or a bond is issued by the Collector to a creditor under Ss. 30 or 31. Mt. Sahodra, after the appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 13th April 1937, appealed to the Privy Council. 24, 25, 28 or 31 or a bond is issued by the Collector to a creditor under Ss. 30 or 31. Mt. Sahodra, after the appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 13th April 1937, appealed to the Privy Council. On 13th October 1942, the appeal was allowed by the Privy Council and the decision is reported in AIR 1943 10 (Privy Council) It was on 24th February 1943, that Mt. Sahodra put in her claim under S. 11 on the ground that she had no information of the proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act and secondly, that she could not put forward any claim after the High Court had decided on 13th April 1937 that she had no interest in the property. The learned Judge has dismissed this claim on the ground that there was no sufficient cause made out to his satisfaction to condone the delay. Along with the application under S. 11 an application under 8. 9 was also filed and that too was dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred. Mt. Sahodra has filed this appeal. On behalf of the landlords-applicants two objections are taken by Mr. Pathak: firstly, that the appeal is incompetent as only one of the landlords-applicants, Ram Babu, has been impleaded as a respondent and his two minor sons have not been impleaded in this appeal. The second objection is that the final award was made on 11th February 1943 and the learned Special Judge could not have, there-fore, extended the period of limitation even if he was satisfied that there was sufficient cause. On the first point, we are of the opinion that the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents has no force. Ram Babu claimed to have the property by collateral succession and his eons had, therefore, no interest in the property by birth. In the application under the Encumbered Estates Act, Ram Babu is the applicant along with the two minor sons under his guardianship. Ram Babu is toe karta of the family and he represents, therefore, the whole family and it is not necessary to implead Ramesh Chand and Gokalesh Prasad separately. In the application under the Encumbered Estates Act, Ram Babu is the applicant along with the two minor sons under his guardianship. Ram Babu is toe karta of the family and he represents, therefore, the whole family and it is not necessary to implead Ramesh Chand and Gokalesh Prasad separately. Lastly, we find that no appearance was put in the lower Court on behalf of the two minors and in the decree that has been prepared, against which the appeal has been filed, the names of the minors do not appear and the decree is in favour of Ram Babu alone. All the creditors to the action have been made parties to this appeal. As regards the second objection, the facts are not very clear from the papers that are before us. It does not appear to be likely that bonds could have been issued by the Collector under Ss. 80 or 31 as the rules provide for two months time after the final award for the indenting of these bonds. We do not know whether the property had or had not been transferred under the provisions of Ss. 24, 25, 28 or 31. It, therefore, appears to be desirable that an issue be remitted to the lower Court for a finding whether the property in dispute had been transferred to any person under the provisions of Ss. 24, 25, 28 or 31 or bonds had been issued by the Collector to the creditors under Ss. 30 or 31, Encumbered Estates Act, before 24th February 1943, the date on which the application under S. 11 was filed. The finding will be returned within three months from today. The parties are entitled to produce fresh evidence. The record may be sent down at an early date. Ten days' time is given for filing objections after the return of the finding.