JUDGMENT Malik, CJ. - Bishunath Singh, the landlord applicant, had filed an application u/s 4, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act in October, 1936, in which he had shown in the list of properties seven villages in which he said he had a four annas six pies share. Chandra Shekhar, Chhotta Singh, Mathura Singh and others had claimed that they had inherited this property on the death of Gaya Kunwar, the widow of the last male owner, Laik Singh and they were the next reversions. Suit No. 14 of 1935 had been filed on their behalf and had been decreed on the 7th September, 1936. Bishunath Singh though he had shown the properties as belonging to him, had disclosed in the application the names of the objectors, Chandra Shekhar, Chhotta Singh and Mathura Singh as creditors. Chandra Shekhar filed an objection on the 26th October, 1937, claiming that a sum of money was due to him as costs under the decree of the trial Court in suit No. 14 of 1935. He did not however, make any objection as to Bishunath Singh's title to the seven villages which it is now said formed part of the Mendauli estate and had been decreed in favour of Chandra Shekhar and others in suit No. 14 of 1935. Chhotta Singh filed an objection u/s 11, Encumbered Estates Act on the 1st March, 1943. Mathura Singh, however, in his objection dated the 30th July, 1937, besides claiming his share of the costs awarded to him under the decree in suit No. 14 of 1935, further stated that he had been given possession through Court of the property relating to ilaka Mendauli. He went on further to state that the landlord applicant had wrongly shown in his written statement that he was the proprietor of villages Mendauli, Sikrauri, Tikra Kalanj Tikra Khurd. Bandwari, Manda Khera and Chanwar. On the 9th March, 1943, he filed a regular objection u/s 11. The learned Special Judge held that the objection dated the 18th February, 1943, filed by Chandra Shekhar and those dated the 1st March and 9th March, 1943, filed by Chhotta Singh and Mathurs Singh respectively were time barred and no sufficient cause had been made out for condonation of the delay under the proviso to Section 11 Sub-section (2), Encumbered Estates Act. The property had been notified in the U.P. Gazette in accordance with the provisions of the Act on two dates, namely, the 27th November, 1937, and again in September, 1938. An objection u/s 11 had to be filed within three months of the date of publication of the notification. Learned Counsel has, however, urged that the objection filed by Mathura Singh on the 30th July, 1937, should have been treated as an objection u/s 11 of the Act and should have been heard and disposed of accordingly. 2. The scheme of the Act is that the landlord applicant has to give a list of his debts and a list of his properties. u/s 9 of the Act, a notice of this application is published in such paper or papers as the Court may direct and has to be exhibited in the Court building and the office of the Collector. It has also to be exhibited in a conspicuous place in the village where the landlord resides. After the amendment of 1937, a copy of the written statement along with a copy of the notice had to be sent by registered post to each creditor. Before the amendment of 1939, however, it does not appear to have been necessary to send a copy of the written statement. The creditor who is also called a claimant had then to file a written statement of his claim u/s 10. In this he has to give full particulars as regards his debts and has also to mention the nature and extent of the landlord's property. The landlord having already given a list of his properties in his written statement u/s 8, probably what the section requires is that the creditor if he wants to add to that it may mention such other properties as he considers the landlord should have included and which he had omitted from his own list. u/s 11 the Special Judge is then acquired to publish a complete list of the property including that mentioned by the landlord and that mentioned by the creditors. u/s 11 the Special Judge is then acquired to publish a complete list of the property including that mentioned by the landlord and that mentioned by the creditors. When this list is published in the official Gazette, then any person having any claim to the property mentioned in the notice can within three months file an objection setting out his claim to the property and the Special Judge is then required to decide 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. 3. The first question therefore that arises is whether Mathura Singh's objection, filed on the 30th July, 1937, in which he clearly stated that the landlord applicant had no interest in the seven villages and he was a co-sharer in the property with respect to which he along with others had filed a suit and had obtained a decree, should be ignored or it can be treated as an objection which the learned Judge was bound to hear and decide u/s l1. It is true that this objection was filed even before the notification in the gazette. The mere fact, however, that an objection is filed even before the publication of the list of properties in the gazette does not mean that it can be ignored. A person coming to know that a landlord applicant has in his written statement included certain items of property which did not belong to him and belonged to the objector may put in his claim and to our minds the learned Judge will be bound to consider that claim. The publication of the notice in the official gazette is the starting point of limitation and it does not mean that if an objection is filed before the notification is published, the said objection cannot be entertained, heard and disposed of. 4. Learned Counsel has placed before us several decisions bearing on the point where more or less the same view was taken. They are as follows: 5. Raman Lal v. Raghunath Shanker 1940 W.A.R. (H.C.) 572 1941 O.W.N. 388, Jham Singh v. Suraj Bakhsh Singh 1942 A.W.R. (C.C.) 228 Bishwanath Singh v. Shivratan 1942 A.W.R. (C.C.) 342, Mohd. Askari v. Sheo Prasad 1945 A.W.R. (C.C.) 76. 6. They are as follows: 5. Raman Lal v. Raghunath Shanker 1940 W.A.R. (H.C.) 572 1941 O.W.N. 388, Jham Singh v. Suraj Bakhsh Singh 1942 A.W.R. (C.C.) 228 Bishwanath Singh v. Shivratan 1942 A.W.R. (C.C.) 342, Mohd. Askari v. Sheo Prasad 1945 A.W.R. (C.C.) 76. 6. The result, therefore, is that in our view Mathura Singh's objection filed on the 30th July, 1937, should have been considered on the merits and the learned Judge was not justified in not taking that objection at all into consideration. It may be that his attention was not drawn to that objection as in the objection filed on the 9th March, 1943, Mathura Singh said that he had no knowledge that Bishunath Singh had shown himself as a co-sharer in these properties. 7. The next question that has been raised by learned Counsel for Bishunath Singh is that even though Mathura Singh's objection filed on the 30th July, 1937, may be taken into account, there is no reason for giving the benefit of that objection to the other objectors, Chandra Shekhar and Chotta Singh. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 provides that any person having any claim to the property may file an objection. He has no doubt to specify and make out how he claims to be interested in the property but what the learned Judge has to determine is whether the property "specified in the claim" or any part thereof was liable to attachment sale or mortgage in satisfaction of the debts of the applicant. The question, therefore, is what were the properties specified in the claim.' Para. 7 of the objection clearly makes out that the objector was a co-sharer and the applicant landlord had no interest in any of the seven villages mentioned therein. u/s 19 Sub-section (2) the Special Judge has to inform the Collector of the nature and extent of the property mentioned in the notice u/s 11 which he has found liable to attachment, sale or mortgage in satisfaction of the debts of the applicant. Before the learned Judge could inform the Collector, he had to decide the point raised by Mathura Singh that the seven villages mentioned in para. 7 of the objection of Mathura Singh did not belong to the landlord applicant and were not liable to attachment, sale or mortgage in satisfaction of the debts due from the land lord applicant. 8. Before the learned Judge could inform the Collector, he had to decide the point raised by Mathura Singh that the seven villages mentioned in para. 7 of the objection of Mathura Singh did not belong to the landlord applicant and were not liable to attachment, sale or mortgage in satisfaction of the debts due from the land lord applicant. 8. As the learned Judge has not decided the case on the merits, we have to send it back to him 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 Bishunath Singh. 9. As it does not appear from the judgment that the Appellants had placed any reliance on the first objection filed by Mathura Singh on the 30th July, 1937, we consider it a fit case in which parties should be directed to hear their own costs. 10. The result, therefore, is that First Civil Appeals Nos. 89, 96 and 101 of 1944 are allowed and the orders passed by the lower Court are set aside. The cases shall go back to the lower Court for decision according to law. We make no order as to costs. 11. As the appeals have been decided, the stay orders are vacated.