Procedural amendment and actionable claim recovery govern evacuee property claims; a fresh limitation plea was not entertained.

The amended recovery provision was treated as procedural and applied to proceedings started after its commencement, even where the underlying claim arose earlier. Section 9 was confined to physical recovery of seizable property, not incorporeal rights; an evacuee's right to recover money was therefore recoverable as an actionable claim under the amended section 48. A limitation plea based on the amount being treated as a deposit was not entertained because it had not been raised below and would have required factual inquiry. The commentary states that the recovery order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended section 48 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act could be applied to proceedings initiated after the amendment in respect of an earlier claim, and whether the Custodian could recover the sum as payable in respect of an actionable claim rather than by physical seizure under section 9. (ii) Whether the appellant could, for the first time before the Court, contend that recovery was barred by limitation even if the amount was treated as a deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the amended section 48 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act could be applied to proceedings initiated after the amendment in respect of an earlier claim, and whether the Custodian could recover the sum as payable in respect of an actionable claim rather than by physical seizure under section 9.

Analysis: The amendment was treated as procedural and therefore applicable to proceedings commenced after its commencement, even though the underlying claim arose earlier. Section 9 was held to deal with physical recovery of movable or immovable property capable of seizure, not with incorporeal rights such as an actionable claim. The right of the evacuee to recover the amount from the appellant was the property that vested in the Custodian, and recovery could therefore proceed under section 48 as a sum payable in respect of evacuee property.

Conclusion: The amended section 48 applied, and the Custodian was entitled to proceed against the actionable claim; the appellant's objection on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could, for the first time before the Court, contend that recovery was barred by limitation even if the amount was treated as a deposit.

Analysis: The point had not been raised before the authorities below, where the case had proceeded on the distinct footing that the transaction was a loan and not a deposit. The Court declined to permit a new factual and legal contention to be raised for the first time, particularly where the issue might have required evidence on matters such as the terms of the deposit and possible acknowledgements.

Conclusion: The limitation plea was not allowed to be raised for the first time, and the appellant failed on this ground as well.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, and the recovery order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural amendments apply to proceedings instituted after their commencement, and a vested incorporeal right or actionable claim of an evacuee may be recovered under the amended recovery provision; a new plea involving facts not raised below will not ordinarily be entertained for the first time in appeal.

---