NAROTIAM KISHORE DEV VARMA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 06-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

7 S.C.R. 
SUPRE:IIE COURT REPORTS 
55 
NAROTIAM KISHORE DEV VARMA AND ORS. 
. v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
IP. B. GAJi:NDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AY\'ANGAR AND s. M. SIKRI, JJ.I 
Suit against Former Ruler-Requirement of consent of Cen-
tral Gov'ernment-Constitutional validity-£:ode of Civil Pro· 
cedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), ss. 87B, 86-Constitution of India, 
Arts. 14. 19(1)(f). 
The petitioners applied for the consent of the Central 
Government under ·3. 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure to 
sue the Maharaja of Tripura, Ruler of a former Indian State, 
which has merged with India. They wanted to implead the 
Union of India as \\'ell, as party to the suit as their case '\Vas 
that they were entitled, as members of a joint Hindu family to 
receive either from the said Ruler or from the Union appro-
priate maintenance allowance under the custom of the Ruling 
family. Consent having been refused, they applied to this Court 
under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Their case was that s. 87B 
of the Code in granting exemption to Rulern of former Indian 
Sta.tes from being sued except with the consent of the Central 
Government contravened Arts. 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Consti-
tution. 
Held, that in view of the previous decision of this Court 
s. 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure was no longer open to 
challenge under Art. 14 of the Constitution. 
Mohan Lal Jain v. His Highness Maharaja Shri Sawai Man 
Singhji (1962] 1 •S.C.R. 702, referred to. 
Regard being had to the legislative and historical back-
ground of s. 87B of the COde, it could not be said that, that 
section in giv.ing special treatment to ex-Rulers had imposed 
a~ unreasonable restriction on th~ petitioner's fundamental 
rights. !Vlotivated as iit was by the sole object of bringing the 
entire country including the former Indian States under one 
Central Government, it must be held to be reasonable and in 
the mterest of the general public. 
But con~idered in the light of the basic principle of equality 
before law It would be odd to allow the section to continue 
prospectively for al! time to come. It would therefore. be for 
the Central Government to consider whether it should not be 
confined to dealings and transactions previous to January 26 
19fil 
, 
Nor should the section be used to stifle claims except such 
as are ~!early far-fetched or frivolous and consent should ordi-
narily If i::ot as ma.~ter of course, be granted in the case of a 
genume dispute which prima facie appears to be triable by a 
court of law such as the present one. 
1964 
.Marrh 6 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
1964 
ORIGINAL JuRISDJCTION:Writ Petition No. 87 of 1962. 
N arottamkiskore 
Deo Verma and 
Others 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
\'. 
Union of India. and 
An-0tiler 
N. S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No. 1. 
S. S. Shukla, for the petitioner. 
Gajendragadkar, O.J. 
M. C. Setalvad and D. N. Mukherjee, for respondent 
No. 2. 
March 6, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
by 
GAJENDRAGADKAR C. J.-This is a writ petition filed 
under Art. 32 of the Constitution by which the eight petitioners 
challenged the validity· of section 87B of the Code of Civil 
Procedure. These petitioners claim that they and respondent 
No. 2, His Highness Maharaja Kirit Vikram Kishore Deb 
Yarman, are members O'f a joint Hindu family governed by the 
Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. Under a family custom 
which, it is alleged, has prevailed in this family for centuries, 
the Raj as well as the Zamindari properties belonging to the 
family are held by a single individual and the other members 
of the family are entitled to maintenance according to the 
status of the family with the right to succession to the Raj 
as well as the Zamindari properties under the general rule of 
·succession which prevails and which is not inconsistent with 
the family custom. The head of the family was, by family cus-
tom, called the Chief and he was chosen from among the 
members of the Ruling Deb Barman family and used to be 
installed on !he Gaddi or Throne. The petitioners further al-
leged that llje Ruler when so chosen and installed hdd the 
State and Zarnindari as life tenant subject to the usual charges 
for maintenance of the members of the Ruling Family. 
In course of time. the maintenance allowance of the 
members of the Ruling family came to be fixed arbitra'rily by 
the Rulers without
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.