Custodian's power to satisfy genuine creditor claims from evacuee property was upheld despite deletion of the debt-specific provision.

The SC held that a Custodian administering evacuee property under Section 10(1) and Section 10(2)(n) could examine a creditor's monetary claim, including a money decree, and pay it from funds in his possession if satisfied the claimant was genuinely entitled. The civil court decree was not conclusive, so the Custodian had to act judicially and determine entitlement on merits. The deletion of Section 10(2)(m) and Rule 22 did not curtail this power, because the Section 10(2) clauses were illustrative and not exhaustive. The broader administrative power to discharge binding obligations of the evacuee remained intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Custodian, under Section 10(2)(n) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, had power to entertain and satisfy a creditor's claim, including a money decree, out of funds in his possession; (ii) Whether deletion of Section 10(2)(m) and Rule 22 curtailed that power.

Issue (i): Whether the Custodian, under Section 10(2)(n) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, had power to entertain and satisfy a creditor's claim, including a money decree, out of funds in his possession.

Analysis: Section 10 confers general powers for securing, administering, preserving and managing evacuee property. Clause (n) authorises payment to the evacuee, a family member, or any other person whom the Custodian considers entitled to payment. The vesting of evacuee property is for administration and management, not ownership, and the scheme of the Act does not limit administration to mere collection of assets. The Custodian must determine the genuineness of the claim and act judicially, but the civil court decree is not conclusive of entitlement.

Conclusion: Yes. The Custodian had power to entertain the claim and, if satisfied that the claimant was entitled, to pay it out of the funds in his possession.

Issue (ii): Whether deletion of Section 10(2)(m) and Rule 22 curtailed that power.

Analysis: The earlier express reference to debts in clause (m) and the procedural machinery in Rule 22 did not exhaust the Custodian's powers under Section 10(1) and Section 10(2)(n). The clauses in Section 10(2) are illustrative, not mutually exclusive. Deletion of clause (m) and Rule 22 did not remove the broader power to administer the property by discharging binding obligations of the evacuee.

Conclusion: No. The amendment and deletion did not take away the Custodian's power under Section 10(2)(n).

Final Conclusion: The order refusing jurisdiction was unsustainable, and the matter had to be decided on merits by the Custodian as to whether the claimant was entitled to payment from the evacuee property.

Ratio Decidendi: A Custodian charged with administration of evacuee property may, under Section 10(1) and Section 10(2)(n), determine and satisfy a genuine monetary claim against the evacuee out of funds in his possession, and the removal of a separate debt-specific clause does not narrow that power.

---