1965 (7) TMI 63 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Custodian's Power to Settle Claims Against Evacuee Assets

Raja Bhanu Pratap Singh Versus Assistant Custodian, E.P, Bahraich

The Supreme Court held that the Custodian has the authority to entertain claims from holders of money decrees against evacuees for satisfaction of dues ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Custodian to entertain claims against evacuee property.2. Interpretation of Section 10 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.3. Effect of amendments to Section 10(2)(m) and deletion of Rule 22 on the Custodian's powers.4. Determination of the validity and admissibility of claims against evacuee property.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Custodian to entertain claims against evacuee property:The primary question in this appeal was whether the Custodian has the authority to entertain claims from holders of money decrees against evacuees for satisfaction of dues from assets vested in the Custodian under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The Custodian and the Custodian General had previously held that they did not have such power, but the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Custodian does have the power to pay sums of money to any person who, in the opinion of the Custodian, is entitled to it.2. Interpretation of Section 10 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950:Section 10 deals with the powers and duties of the Custodian. Sub-section (1) grants the Custodian broad powers for securing, administering, preserving, and managing evacuee property. Sub-section (2) lists specific powers, including clause (n), which allows the Custodian to pay sums of money to anyone entitled to it. The Court clarified that the phrase 'any other person' in clause (n) is not limited to the evacuee or their family but includes any person entitled to receive money from the evacuee.3. Effect of amendments to Section 10(2)(m) and deletion of Rule 22 on the Custodian's powers:Section 10(2)(m) originally allowed the Custodian to pay debts due by the evacuee, but this clause was deleted by an amendment in 1956, and Rule 22, which provided a mechanism for registering claims, was also deleted. The Custodian argued that these changes removed their power to pay debts. However, the Court held that the deletion of these provisions did not restrict the Custodian's power under clause (n) of Section 10(2) to pay sums of money to any person entitled to it.4. Determination of the validity and admissibility of claims against evacuee property:The Court emphasized that the Custodian must determine the genuineness of claims against evacuee property. The Custodian's opinion on whether a claimant is entitled to payment must be formed judicially and not arbitrarily. The Court noted that the Custodian's role is not merely to manage the property but also to discharge the evacuee's obligations. The Court remanded the case to the Custodian to determine if the appellant is entitled to the claimed sum and whether it should be paid for the purposes of administration and management of the evacuee property.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Custodian and the Custodian General, and remanded the proceedings to the Custodian for a determination on the merits of the appellant's claim. The appellant was awarded costs for the appeal.