They have been described in Schedules A to E and X Schedule A describes the landed properties within the Union territory of Manipur Sch.
Later, on the 9th December, 1955, Maharaja Bodh Chandra Singh died, and he has been succeeded by his minor son Maharaja Okendrajit Singh living under the care and guardianship of his mother Rani Waikhom Nigol Komalanbati Devi.
It appears that at the time of the said Merger, Maharaja Bodh Chandra Singh had prepared an inventory of all his private properties and after scrutiny, it had been approved by the Government of India.
As a result of the said Agreement, all the properties belonging to the State vested in the Dominion Government and the private properties of the Maharaja were left unaffected and were, according to the petitioner, inherited and owned by all the members of the companyarcenary under the provisions of the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law.
1964 AIR SC 1663 The Judgment was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Maharaj Kumar Tokendra Bir Singh under Art.
The said Sir Chura Chandra Singh had abdicated the throne in favour of his eldest son Bodh Chandra Singh, and, in companysequence, Bodh Chandra Singh was recognised as the Ruler of Manipur State.
C with properties in Nadia District in West Bengal Sch D with properties in Mathura District.
The petitioner is the son of His Highness Sir Chura Chandra Singh, the late Maharaja of Manipur who died on the 6th November, 1941.
On the 20th September, 1949, the State of Manipur merged in the Dominion of India under an agreement of Merger executed on the said date.
Uttar Pradesh Sch.
According to the petitioner, the estate belonging to the joint family in which he has a share, companysists of several movable and immovable properties.
It is against this minor Maharaja that the petitioner intends to file a suit for partition.
While approving the said inventory the Government of India had definitely stated that the effect of the declaration of the said property as private property was that the State had number claim on it.
X mentions the fire arms brought and owned by the late Maharaja Sir Chura Chandra Singh.
54, 894/ awarded to the family in respect of certain items of property and Sch.
As required by S. 87B, C. P., the petitioner applied to the Government of India for its companysent to this proposed suit against the minor Maharaja, and by its order passed on the 23rd October, 1961, the Government of India has accorded companysent to the petitioner to file the suit in respect of properties mentioned in Schedules A and E, and number in respect of properties mentioned in Schedules B, C, D and X. By his present petition, the petitioner companytends that S. 87B which has imposed the statutory companydition on the petitioner that he must obtain the companysent of the Government of India before filing a suit the minor Maharaja of Manipur, is companystitutionally invalid and he also urge that even if the said section were valid, there was number jurisdiction in the Government of India to accord companysent in respect of some properties and refuse to accord companysent in respect of some others.
B deals with properties at Gauhati in Assam Sch.
At his death, he left behind him six sons, including the petitioner, and companysiderable movable and immovable properties which, according to the petitioner, were his self acquired properties and as such, did number form part of the Manipur State.
32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of S. 87B of the Civil Procedure Code, as well as of the order passed by the Government of India according partial companysent to the suit which the petitioner proposes to file against His Highness Okendrajit Singh, Maharaja of Manipur.
