LexRAJA BHANUPRATAP SINGH versus ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAJA BHANUPRATAP SINGH
v.
ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY U.P.
July 29, 1965
[K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.j
AdminbtraJion of Evacuee Proptrty Act (31 of 19SO), ss. 10(1) and
10(2)(m) and (n)-Scope of.
The appellant was the holder of a mooey decree against an evacuee
whole property had vested in the Custodian. Under s. 17 of the Admini&-
tration of E\1lcuee Property Act, 1950. the property was not liable to
be proceeded against in execution so long as it remained vested in tho
CUatodian, and the appellant could not take steJ" to execute the decree.
He therefore applied to the Custodian under s. 10(2)(n) of the Act, for
satisfaction of hts claim out of the assets of the evacuee. The application
was rejected on the grou11d that the Custodian had no power to grant the
relief and the order was confirmed by the Custodian General, in revi-
sion.
In bis appeal to
this Coun the
appellant contended that the
Cuatodian should have entertained his claim.
HELD : The orders passed by the Custodian and the Custodian General
must be set aside and the proceeding remanded to the Custodian to deter-
mine the questions, whether in the opinion of the Custodian, the appellant
A
B
c
D
was entitled to any sum of money out of the funds in the Custodian's
possession and whether. for the purpa5e of administration and manage-
E
meot of the evacuee property or for enabling him satisfactorily to dis-
charge bi• duties under the Act the Custodian should pay the amount
claimed. (311 H; 312 AJ
•
Section 10(1) of the Act, sets out the powers of the Custodian gene-
rally, and the diverse clauses of s. 10(2) illustrate the specific purposes
for which the powers may be exercised. These clauses are not mutually
exclusive.
Under cl. (m), before its amendment by Act 91 of 1956,
express power to entertain a claim for satisfaction of debts due by the
evacuee was conferred uPon the Custodian. Oausc (n) confers upon the
Custodian power. coupled with a duty. to pay to the evacuee or to any
member of his fami1y or to any other person, who in the opinion of the
Custodian is entitled, any sum of money out of the estate of tho evacuee.
The words "any other person" are not restricted to persons who are
member9 of the evacuee's family, but include other persona as well whe
are entitled to receive money from the evacuee. Thus, the power to pay
the evacuee's debts was derived both under els. (m) and (n) of s. 10(2l.
Therefore, the deletion from cl. (m) of the Cu•todian"• power to pay
the debts. by the Amending Act of 1956. and the consequential deletion
of r. 22 of the rules framed under the Act, by which a machinery was
provided for exercising that power. did not affect the power which is
conferred hy s. 10(2){n) and by s. 10(1). The power to administer,
under s. 10(1). is not merely a power to manage on behalf of the
evacuee so as to authorise the Custodian only to recover and collect the
assets of the evacuee; it includes power to discharge hi~ obligations as
well, to pay such debts which. in the opinion of the Custodian, arc binding
upon the evacuee. (307 C: 309 C-D: 311 C-EJ
F
G
•
-
•
,
•
BHANUPRATAP v. CUSTODIAN (Shah,/.)
305
A
A decree of the civil coun is not decisive of the question whether a
penon making a claim is entitled to the money claimed by him; it is ~or
the Custodian to determine whether he is so en\Jtled.
The Custodian
has to form his "opinion" on this question, and in forming his opinion,
he must act judicially and not arbitrarily. [311 F·G]
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal No. 124 of
1963.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
January 22, 1962, of the Deputy Custodian General of India,
New Delhi No. 472/R/UP/1961.
S. S. Shukla, for the appellant.
c
Gopal Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J.
Rani Manraj Koer obtained money decrees in two
suits Nos. 9 of 1932 and 42 of 1932 filed by her in the Court
of the Subordinate Judge, Lucknow against Nawab Mohammad
D
Ali Khan Qazilbash Zamindar, Aliabad Estate, in Uttar Pradesh.
From time to time execution applications were filed by the decree
holder against the Zamindar, but nothing was recovered. Rani
Manraj Koer died on October 1, 1941 and the appellant was
brought on the record as her heir and legal representative. Nawab
Mohammad Ali Khan Qazilbash also died and five persons
E
amongst whom was one NaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.