https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276795 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. en-us Mon, 23 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Nov 2018 14:28:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276795 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276795