JUDGMENT R. Singh, J. - This is an appeal against an order of the Special Judge, first class, Barabanki, admitting a claim of the Respondent u/s 11 of the Encumbered Estates Act. 2. It appears that an application was made by one Tufail Hussain and Saiyid Mohammad Haider, minor, u/s 4 of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. The applicants had shown their property, which was published in the Gazette. No claim was filed by the Respondent till the proceedings terminated in the Court of the Special Judge. On the 15'h December, 1944, when the liquidation proceedings were pending in the Court of the Collector but property had not been transferred under Sections 24, 25, 28 and 31 of the Encumbered Estates Act, the Respondent filed a claim u/s 11 of the Encumbered Estates Act claiming to be the owner of the 7/20th share of the property which was shown by the applicants as their property and which was published and subsequently found by the Special Judge to be the property of the applicants. The ground on which this belated application was made was that the Respondent had no knowledge of the proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act or of the inclusion of his own property in the list of property published in the Gazette and he could not, therefore, file a claim in proper time. 3. The claim of the Respondent claimant was contested on behalf of the Appellant, who was creditor. It was alleged on behalf of the Appellant that the claimant had knowledge of the proceedings and there was, therefore, no sufficient cause for entertaining his claim at that stage. It was also contended that the claim was barred by Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act. The lower Court found on both the points in favour of the Respondent and allowed the claim. The creditor Appellant has come up in appeal. 4. Only two points have been pressed in arguments. It is contended that the lower Court's finding that there was sufficient cause for the delay in making the claim was not correct. The lower Court has found that the claimant had knowledge of the proceedings but he had no knowledge that his own property had been included in the property of the applicants, which was published in the Gazette. It is contended that the lower Court's finding that there was sufficient cause for the delay in making the claim was not correct. The lower Court has found that the claimant had knowledge of the proceedings but he had no knowledge that his own property had been included in the property of the applicants, which was published in the Gazette. It has been argued that having found that the claimant had knowledge of the proceedings, the Court should not have held that he had no knowledge of the fact that the property of the claimant had also been included in the applicants' property. Both the matters were questions of fact and if the learned Special Judge, who had the benefit of hearing the evidence, was satisfied that the claimant was not aware that his own property had been included in the list of the property published in the Gazette, we are not disposed to disagree with him on the findings of fact. 5. The second point that has been pressed in argument before us is that Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act applies and reliance has been placed on a single Judge ruling of the Patna High Court in Amiruddin v. Saidur Rahman and Ors. AIR 1916 Pat. 408. The case referred to above related to certain holding under the Bengal Tenancy Act and it was held that the suit as brought was in substance a suit u/s 111 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which ought to be brought within six years. The suit was, therefore, held to be barred. This ruling has hardly any application to the facts of the present case. The law requires a person whose property is wrongly shown by an applicant u/s 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act, as the applicant's property, to file a claim in respect of his property and it would then be the duty of the Court to give a declaration as to whether that property was liable to sale in liquidation of the debt. Such a claim would not be a suit for a declaration and Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act has, therefore, no application to such a claim. 6. As a result the appeal has no merits and is dismissed. The Respondent has not turned up. We, therefore, make no order as to costs.