MOHANLAL JAIN versus HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJSHRI SAWAI MAN SINGHJI

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 702 · Decided: 03-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

rg6r 
702 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
MOHANLAL JAIN 
v. 
HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJ A SHRI SAW AI 
MAN SINGHJI 
• 
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, 
J. C. SHAH and T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.) 
Civil Procedure-Suit against Ex-Ruler-Maintainability-
Immunity of Ex-Rulers from being sued -If discriminatory-
" Sued", Meaning of-Code of Civil Procedure, r908 (Act V of 
r908), ss. 86, 87-B-Constitution of India, Art. r4. 
The appellant filed a suit for the recovery of money as 
price of goods supplied against the Ex-Ruler of Jaipur. Sub-
sequently s. 87-B was introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure 
making the provisions of s. 86 in respect of suits against rulers 
of foreign States applicable to the rulers of former Indian States. 
The Ex-Ruler raised the plea that the suit was incompetent as 
the consent of the Central Government had not been obtained 
as required bys. 87-B. The appellant contended: (i) thats. 87-B 
violated Art. r4 of the Constitution and was void, (ii) that 
s. 87-B did not apply to the continuation of a suit pending at 
the time when s. 87-B was enacted but only to the filing of a 
suit after the enactment of that section. 
Held, thats. 87-B did not violate Art. r4 of the Constitu-
tion and was not void. Section 87-B of the Code of Civil Proce-
dure merely continued the privilege which was formerly enjoy-
ed by the Rulers of Indian States and in regard to which the 
covenants entered into by the Ex-Rulers and the Government of 
India provided for their continuance. This agreement about the 
privileges was further assured by Art. 362 of the Constitution. 
The Ex-Rulers thus formed a class and the special legislation 
was based upon historical considerations applicable to them as a 
class. The classification was based on a distinction which was 
real and substantial and it bore a just relation to the object 
sought to be attained. 
Held, further, that the suit was incompetent against the 
Ex-Ruler of Jaipur. The protection of s. 87-B read withs. 86 
applied both to the filing of a suit and to its pursuit through 
the courts. Section 86 provides that "No Ruler ............ may be 
sued in any court ......... " A person is "sued" not only when the 
plaint is filed against him, but is "sued" also when the suit 
remained pending against him. The word "sued" covers the 
entire proceedings in an action. Consequently, the consent of 
the Central Government was necessary not only for the filing of 
the suit against the Ex-Ruler but also for its continuation from 
the time consent was required. 
·' 
'
, -
• 
.. 
t ' 
I • 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
703 
Held, further, that s. 87-B was on its terms applicable to 
pending suits and there was no saving in favour of pending 
actions. 
K. C. Mukherjee v. Mst. Ram Ratan Kuer, (1935) I.L.R. 15 
Pat. 268, applied. 
CrvIL APPELLATE JumsmcTION: Civil Appeal No. 
20 of 1960. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
September 5, 1956, of the J udicia] Commissioner's 
Court at Ajmer in Civil First Appeal No. 3 of 1956. 
B. D. Sharma, for the appellant. 
M. O. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, 0. L. 
Agarwala, M. K. Ramamurthy, R. K. Garg, D. P. 
Singh and S. 0. Agarwal, for the respondents 1 and 3. 
1961. April 3. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Mohanlal Jain 
v. 
His Highness 
Maharaja Shri 
Sawai 
l\1an Singhji 
HIDAYATULLAH, J. -This is an appeal by the /Iidayatullah ]. 
plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Judi-
cial Commissioner, Ajmer, confirming the decree of 
the trial Judge dismissing the suit. It comes before 
us on a certificate under Arts. 132(1) and 133(l)(c) of 
the Constitution granted by the High Court of Rajas-
than after the Reorganisation of the States. 
The suit was filed by the appellant for recovery of 
Rs. 23,998-12-0 as price of goods supplied in the year 
1947 to the Ruler of Jaipur State, (including interest) 
and damages suffered by the appellant due to the 
refusal of the defendants to take delivery of some 
other goods similarly ordered. In addition to the 
ex-Ruler of Jaipur, his Military Secretary and one 
Mohabat Singh, an employee of the ex-Ruler, were 
also joined as defendants, on the plea that they had 
placed the orders as agents of the ex-Ruler. The suit 
was filed on February 28, 1951. 
The ex-Ruler raised 
the plea that the suit was incompetent, as the consent 
of the Central Government under s. 87-B of the Code 
of Civil Procedure was not obtained and asked that 
the suit be dismissed. Th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.