Section 87B consent powers are limited: recognised successors qualify as Rulers, and merits cannot be decided while granting consent.

A successor to a former covenanting Ruler recognised by the President falls within the inclusive definition of "Ruler" in Article 366(22) and is entitled to the protection of Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure; the provision was also upheld as constitutionally valid. The Central Government's power under Section 87B is confined to granting or refusing consent to sue and does not extend to imposing partial or conditional consent or deciding disputed questions of title or partition on the merits. Consent could not therefore be withheld for part of the proposed suit on a merits-based assessment, and the restrictive portion of the order was invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the minor Maharaja, as successor of the former Ruler of Manipur, fell within the expression "Ruler" in Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether Section 87B was constitutionally valid. (ii) Whether the Central Government could grant only partial or conditional consent under Section 87B and decide the merits of the proposed suit while considering the application for consent.

Issue (i): Whether the minor Maharaja, as successor of the former Ruler of Manipur, fell within the expression "Ruler" in Section 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether Section 87B was constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The expression "Ruler" in Article 366(22) is an inclusive definition and extends to a person recognised by the President as the successor of the original covenanting Ruler. The minor Maharaja, having been recognised as the successor of his father, was therefore within that definition and could claim the protection available under Section 87B. As to constitutional validity, the Court followed the earlier decision upholding Sections 86 and 87B and rejected the challenge to the provision.

Conclusion: The minor Maharaja was a Ruler within the meaning of Section 87B, and Section 87B was constitutionally valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the Central Government could grant only partial or conditional consent under Section 87B and decide the merits of the proposed suit while considering the application for consent.

Analysis: The power under Section 87B is limited to granting or refusing consent; it does not authorise the Central Government to impose conditions, grant consent in part, or adjudicate disputed questions of title and partition. The refusal of consent in respect of some properties was based on an evaluation of the merits of the petitioner's claim, which was beyond the permissible scope of the statutory power. The order was therefore vulnerable to challenge to the extent it withheld consent for part of the suit.

Conclusion: Partial or conditional consent was impermissible, and the restrictive part of the order was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded in substance, and the impugned order was construed as granting consent for the institution of the entire proposed suit.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 87B, the Central Government may only grant or refuse consent to sue a former Ruler and cannot adjudicate the merits of the proposed claim or impose partial conditions on consent; a successor recognised by the President is a "Ruler" for that purpose.

---