1964 (3) TMI 118 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 87B of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
2. Applicability of Section 87B to the minor Maharaja.
3. Validity of the conditional order passed by the Government of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Section 87B of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC):
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 87B, CPC, which requires obtaining the consent of the Government of India before filing a suit against a Ruler of a former Indian State. The Supreme Court referred to its previous decisions in Narottam Kishore Deb Verma v. Union of India and Mohan Lal Jain v. Shri Sawai Man Singhji, affirming that the validity of Section 87B could not be successfully challenged. The Court emphasized that the historical and legislative background justified the constitutional validity of Sections 86 and 87B. However, it was suggested that the Central Government should examine whether Section 87B should continue to exist for causes of action accruing after January 26, 1950. The Court highlighted the need for careful exercise of authority under Section 87B to avoid frivolous suits and ensure legitimate claims are not stifled by executive orders.

2. Applicability of Section 87B to the Minor Maharaja:
The petitioner argued that Section 87B did not apply to the minor Maharaja Okendrajit Singh, as he did not sign the covenant or agreement of merger and thus could not be considered a Ruler under Article 366(22) of the Constitution. The Court clarified that the definition of "Ruler" in Article 366(22) includes successors recognized by the President. Since the minor Maharaja was recognized by the President as the successor of his deceased father, he was entitled to claim the status of a Ruler under Section 87B(2)(b).

3. Validity of the Conditional Order Passed by the Government of India:
The petitioner contended that the Government of India had no jurisdiction to accord partial consent to the suit. The Court examined whether the conditional order passed by the Secretary to the Government of India was valid under Section 87B. The Court emphasized that the power to accord or refuse consent must be carefully exercised, and the Central Government should not adjudicate on the merits of the claim. The Court noted that the affidavit filed by the respondent indicated an attempt to adjudicate the merits of the petitioner's claim, which was improper. The Court held that Section 87B authorizes the Central Government to either accord or refuse consent, not to impose conditions or accord partial consent. The Court concluded that the order granting partial consent was invalid and should be construed as an order according consent to the entire suit.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court declared that the order passed by the Central Government should be interpreted as according consent to the institution of the suit in its entirety, and the refusal to accord consent for properties mentioned in Schedules B, C, D, and X was invalid. The petitioner was entitled to his costs from the respondent.