https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469742 Recognition of a successor Ruler under Article 366(22) was treated as a constitutional act of political power, not an adjudication of private property rights, so the challenge under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 failed. The provision was held to confer power on the President to recognise and, where applicable, withdraw recognition. A covenant-based succession dispute was treated as non-justiciable under Article 363, because the covenant did not itself establish an enforceable law or custom. Recognition of rulership did not automatically vest rights in the former Ruler's private properties, which remained governed by ordinary succession law. en-us Tue, 30 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 14:18:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469742 Recognition of a successor Ruler under Article 366(22) was treated as a constitutional act of political power, not an adjudication of private property rights, so the challenge under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 failed. The provision was held to confer power on the President to recognise and, where applicable, withdraw recognition. A covenant-based succession dispute was treated as non-justiciable under Article 363, because the covenant did not itself establish an enforceable law or custom. Recognition of rulership did not automatically vest rights in the former Ruler's private properties, which remained governed by ordinary succession law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Sep 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469742