1. Challenge to validity of Section 87B, Civil Procedure Code, and government order granting partial consent to file a partition suit against a former Ruler. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 99
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
23rd March, 1964
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Maharaj Kumar Tokendra Bir Singh, Petitioner
Versus
Secretary to the Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs and another, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 123 of 1963.
Advocates Appeared
M/s. S. C. Agarwal, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and M. K. Ramamurthi, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., for Petitioner; Mr. S. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor General of India (M/s. R. Thiagarajan and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents.
Important Points
The Central Government, while exercising power under Section 87B of the CPC, cannot adjudicate the merits of a claim or grant partial/conditional consent; it must either grant or refuse consent based on whether the claim is prima facie frivolous.
Subject
Civil Law - Civil Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 87B, Section 86(1), Section 85 - Constitution of India - Article 366(22), Article 32, Article 14, Article 19(1)(f) and (g) - Validity of Section 87B - The statutory condition requiring the consent of the Central Government before filing a suit against a Ruler of a former Indian State is constitutionally valid. (Para 5)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 366(22) - Definition of "Ruler" - The definition is inclusive and encompasses successors of Rulers who are recognized by the President as such. (Para 6)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 87B - Scope of power to grant consent - The power to accord or refuse consent must be exercised with scrupulous care. Consent should normally be granted unless the claim appears prima facie frivolous. The Central Government cannot assume the jurisdiction of a civil court to adjudicate upon the merits of the claim before according consent. (Para 8)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 87B - Partial or conditional consent - The authority conferred under Section 87B allows the Central Government either to accord consent or to refuse it; it does not permit the imposition of conditions or the granting of partial consent, particularly where reliefs are claimed on the same cause of action. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
A petitioner sought to file a partition suit against a minor successor of a former Ruler of an Indian State. The petitioner applied for consent under Section 87B of the Civil Procedure Code. The Central Government granted partial consent, allowing the suit for certain properties but refusing it for others. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 87B and the validity of the partial consent order.
Findings of Court:
Section 87B is constitutionally valid. The minor successor is a "Ruler" within the meaning of the law. The Central Government's order of partial consent was based on an adjudication of the merits of the claim, which is an impermissible exercise of power.
Issues: Whether Section 87B of the Civil Procedure Code is constitutionally valid; whether a recognized successor to a Ruler falls within the definition of "Ruler"; and whether the Central Government can grant partial or conditional consent to a suit under Section 87B.
Ratio Decidendi: The Central Government's role under Section 87B is to protect Rulers from harassment by frivolous suits, not to adjudicate the merits of a claim. Since the power is to either grant or refuse consent, the government cannot grant partial consent or impose conditions, as doing so would improperly confer judicial jurisdiction upon the executive.
Result: Petition succeeds; the order is construed as granting consent to the institution of the suit.
(B) Constitution of India - Article 366(22) - Definition of "Ruler" - The definition is inclusive and encompasses successors of Rulers who are recognized by the President as such. (Para 6)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 87B - Scope of power to grant consent - The power to accord or refuse consent must be exercised with scrupulous care. Consent should normally be granted unless the claim appears prima facie frivolous. The Central Government cannot assume the jurisdiction of a civil court to adjudicate upon the merits of the claim before according consent. (Para 8)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 87B - Partial or conditional consent - The authority conferred under Section 87B allows the Central Government either to accord consent or to refuse it; it does not permit the imposition of conditions or the granting of partial consent, particularly where reliefs are claimed on the same cause of action. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
A petitioner sought to file a partition suit against a minor successor of a former Ruler of an Indian State. The petitioner applied for consent under Section 87B of the Civil Procedure Code. The Central Government granted partial consent, allowing the suit for certain properties but refusing it for others. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 87B and the validity of the partial consent order.
Findings of Court:
Section 87B is constitutionally valid. The minor successor is a "Ruler" within the meaning of the law. The Central Government's order of partial consent was based on an adjudication of the merits of the claim, which is an impermissible exercise of power.
Issues: Whether Section 87B of the Civil Procedure Code is constitutionally valid; whether a recognized successor to a Ruler falls within the definition of "Ruler"; and whether the Central Government can grant partial or conditional consent to a suit under Section 87B.
Ratio Decidendi: The Central Government's role under Section 87B is to protect Rulers from harassment by frivolous suits, not to adjudicate the merits of a claim. Since the power is to either grant or refuse consent, the government cannot grant partial consent or impose conditions, as doing so would improperly confer judicial jurisdiction upon the executive.
Result: Petition succeeds; the order is construed as granting consent to the institution of the suit.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
D.P.Singh, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, R.H.Dhebar, R.K.GARG, R.THIAGARAJAN, S.C.AGRAWAL, S.V.Gupta
D.P.Singh, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, R.H.Dhebar, R.K.GARG, R.THIAGARAJAN, S.C.AGRAWAL, S.V.Gupta
Table of Contents
2. Validity of Section 87B, Civil Procedure Code — status of successor as Ruler under Article 366(22) — validity of partial or conditional consent to institute a suit. (Para 4 , 6 )
3. Section 87B is constitutionally valid — consent should be granted unless claims are prima facie frivolous — government cannot adjudicate merits of claims before granting consent. (Para 5 , 8 , 10 , 11 )
4. Section 87B, Civil Procedure Code, permits only absolute consent or refusal; the government cannot grant partial or conditional consent or adjudicate the merits of the claim. (Para 12 )
5. Petition allowed — government order construed as granting full consent to institute the suit against the former Ruler. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Is Section 87B of the Civil Procedure Code, which requires government consent to sue Rulers of former Indian States, constitutionally valid?
Yes, the court held that Section 87B is constitutionally valid based on its historical and legislative background, though it noted that the government should ensure applications are not rejected in a casual manner. (Para 5 )
7. Does the definition of Ruler under Article 366(22) of the Constitution include successors of Rulers?
Yes, Article 366(22) is an inclusive definition that includes any person recognized by the President as the successor of a Ruler who entered into the specified covenants or agreements. (Para 6 )
8. Can the Central Government adjudicate the merits of a claim when deciding whether to grant consent under Section 87B, Civil Procedure Code?
No, the government should not assume the jurisdiction of a civil court to decide if a claim is well-founded; consent should normally be granted unless the claim appears prima facie frivolous. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 )
9. Is the Central Government permitted to grant partial or conditional consent to a suit under Section 87B, Civil Procedure Code?
No, Section 87B authorizes the government to either accord consent or refuse it; it cannot impose conditions or grant partial consent, particularly where reliefs are claimed on the same cause of action. (Para 12 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : This petition has been filed by the petitioner Maharaj Kumar Tokendra Bir Singh under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of S. 87B of the Civil Procedure Code, as well as of the order passed by the Government of India according partial consent to the suit which the petitioner proposes to file against His Highness Okendrajit Singh, Maharaja of Manipur. The petitioner is the son of His Highness Sir Chura Chandra Singh, the late Maharaja of Manipur who died on the 6th November, 1941. At his death, he left behind him six sons, including the petitioner, and considerable movable and immovable properties which, according to the petitioner, were his self-acquired properties and as such, did not form part of the Manipur State. The said Sir Chura Chandra Singh had abdicated the throne in favour of his eldest son Bodh Chandra Singh, and, in consequence, Bodh Chandra Singh was recognised as the Ruler of Manipur State.
2. On the 20th September, 1949, the State of Manipur merged in the Dominion of India under an agreement of Merger executed on the said date. As a result of the said Agreement, all the properties belonging to the State vested in the Dominion Government and the private properties of the Maharaja were left unaffected and were, according to the petitioner, inherited and owned by all the members of the coparcenary under the provisions of the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. It appears that at the time of the said Merger, Maharaja Bodh Chandra Singh had prepared an inventory of all his private properties and after scrutiny, it had been approved by the Government of India. While approving the said inventory the Government of India had definitely stated that the effect of the declaration of the said property as private property was that the State had no claim on it. The said declaration was approved without prejudice to any rights of third parties. Later, on the 9th December, 1955, Maharaja Bodh Chandra Singh died, and he has been succeeded by his minor son Maharaja Okendrajit Singh living under the care and guardianship of his mother Rani Waikhom Nigol Komalanbati Devi. It is against this minor Maharaja that the petitioner intends to file a suit for partition.
3. According to the petitioner, the estate belonging to the joint family in which he has a share, consists of several movable and immovable properties. They have been described in Schedules A to E and X - Schedule A describes the landed properties within the Union territory of Manipur; Sch. B deals with properties at Gauhati in Assam; Sch. C with properties in Nadia District in West Bengal; Sch D with properties in Mathura District. Uttar Pradesh; Sch. E represents the war compensation of Rs. 54,894/- awarded to the family in respect of certain items of property; and Sch. X mentions the fire arms brought and owned by the late Maharaja Sir Chura Chandra Singh.
4. As required by S. 87B, C. P., the petitioner applied to the Government of India for its consent to this proposed suit against the minor Maharaja, and by its order passed on the 23rd October, 1961, the Government of India has accorded consent to the petitioner to file the suit in respect of properties mentioned in Schedules A and E, and not in respect of properties mentioned in Schedules B, C, D and X. By his present petition, the petitioner contends that S. 87B which has imposed the statutory condition on the petitioner that he must obtain the consent of the Government of India before filing a suit the minor Maharaja of Manipur, is constitutionally invalid; and he also urge that even if the said section were valid, there was no jurisdiction in the Government of India to accord consent in respect of some properties and refuse to accord consent in respect of some others. He further contends that the order passed by the Government of India should be read as having been passed under S. 87B according consent to the whole of the suit, and the refusal to accord such consent in re
