Registered evacuee property refund claims survive, and only surplus custodian cash can be transferred to the compensation pool.

A duly registered claim for refund of sale consideration under Rule 22 remained enforceable under Section 10(2)(n) despite deletion of Rule 22 and amendment of Section 10(2)(m), because registration involved a preliminary adjudication of genuineness and entitlement. The Court also construed "cash balances lying with the Custodian" in Section 14(1)(b) as only surplus funds after meeting verified liabilities and valid claims, not the entire cash holding. Accordingly, transfer to the compensation pool could not defeat an existing registered claim, and the claimant remained entitled to refund from the Custodian's funds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a vendee whose claim for refund of sale consideration was registered under Rule 22 of the Administration of Evacuee Property (Central Rules), 1950 could still invoke Section 10(2)(n) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 for payment after the transfer of cash balances to the compensation pool under Section 14(1)(b) of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954; (ii) whether the expression "cash balances lying with the Custodian" in Section 14(1)(b) authorised transfer of the entire funds with the Custodian or only surplus balances after meeting verified claims.

Issue (i): Whether a registered claim under Rule 22 could be enforced under Section 10(2)(n) notwithstanding deletion of Rule 22 and amendment of Section 10(2)(m).

Analysis: Rule 22 treated a claim for refund of money paid as consideration for an unconfirmed transfer as registrable only if the transfer had not been confirmed under Section 40, the transaction was bona fide, and the consideration paid was proved. Registration was not a mere statistical entry: it required a judicial determination of genuineness and eligibility, and therefore amounted to a preliminary adjudication of the claim. Deletion of Rule 22 and the amendment of Section 10(2)(m) did not destroy the substantive power under Section 10(1) and Section 10(2)(n). The power to pay sums to persons entitled thereto out of funds in the Custodian's possession remained available where a genuine claim had already been adjudged.

Conclusion: The registered claim survived and remained payable under Section 10(2)(n) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.

Issue (ii): Whether the Custodian could transfer all cash in his hands to the compensation pool under Section 14(1)(b) of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954.

Analysis: The expression "cash balances" was construed as the surplus over the amount required to meet outstanding liabilities and verified claims. The word "balances" signified the excess of credits over debits and did not mean total deposits. The Government orders for transfer of funds were also read as dealing with surplus balances. Accordingly, the Custodian had no authority to transfer the whole fund so as to defeat valid registered claims, and any such transfer would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: Only surplus balances could be transferred to the compensation pool, and the respondent's claim could not be defeated by transfer of the entire fund.

Final Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to refund of the sale consideration, and the directions of the High Court were sustained. The appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A duly registered claim based on a bona fide and unconfirmed evacuee-property transfer remains enforceable against funds retained by the Custodian, and statutory transfer to the compensation pool extends only to surplus cash balances after providing for verified liabilities.

---