1961 (4) TMI 91 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rules suit against ex-Ruler incompetent without government consent

MOHANLAL JAIN Versus HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA SHRI SAWAI MAN SINGHJI

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the suit against the ex-Ruler was incompetent without the Central Government's consent as required by ... - Issues Involved1. Competency of the suit against the ex-Ruler without the Central Government's consent under Section 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Validity of Section 87-B under Article 14 of the Constitution.3. Applicability of Section 87-B to a suit pending at the time of its enactment.4. Liability of the other defendants as agents under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act.Detailed AnalysisCompetency of the Suit Against the Ex-RulerThe primary issue was whether the suit against the ex-Ruler of Jaipur was competent without the Central Government's consent under Section 87-B of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant's suit, filed for recovery of Rs. 23,998-12-0 for goods supplied and damages, was dismissed by the trial court and the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, on the grounds that the necessary consent was not obtained. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that Section 87-B, which requires such consent, applied to the case, rendering the suit incompetent against the ex-Ruler.Validity of Section 87-B under Article 14 of the ConstitutionThe appellant contended that Section 87-B was ultra vires the Constitution, violating Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the ex-Rulers formed a distinct class based on historical considerations. The privileges and immunities granted to them were part of the covenants and agreements made during the integration of Indian States with British India, and these were respected under Article 362 of the Constitution. The Court concluded that the classification was real, substantial, and bore a just relation to the objective sought to be achieved, thus not discriminatory.Applicability of Section 87-B to a Pending SuitThe appellant argued that Section 87-B should not apply to suits pending at the time of its enactment. The Supreme Court disagreed, interpreting the word 'sued' in Section 87-B to include not only the initiation but also the continuation of a suit. The Court held that the language of the section was broad enough to cover pending actions, thus requiring the Central Government's consent for the continuation of the suit against the ex-Ruler. Consequently, the suit was deemed incompetent without such consent.Liability of Other Defendants as Agents Under Section 230 of the Indian Contract ActThe appellant also contended that the other defendants were liable as agents of the ex-Ruler under Section 230(3) of the Indian Contract Act. The Supreme Court found that the Military Secretary, who had since died, and Mohabat Singh, who merely signed letters on behalf of the Military Secretary, did not act as agents of the ex-Ruler. The Court noted that Mohabat Singh's role was ministerial, not that of an agent, and thus, the suit against him was misconceived. The dismissal of the suit against the remaining defendants was justified.ConclusionThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit against the ex-Ruler was incompetent without the Central Government's consent, Section 87-B was not ultra vires the Constitution, and the section applied to pending suits. The other defendants were not liable as agents under the Indian Contract Act. The appellant was ordered to pay costs and court fees.