vil Appeals Nos 568 and 757 of 1953
Appeals from the judgment and order dated October 10 1960
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Indore Bench Indore in Civil Miscellaneous Appeals Nos 33 of 1958 and 81 and 82 of 1957
GS Pathak B Dutta 1
B Dadachanji OC Mathur and Ravinder Narain for the appellant
BRL lyengar SK Mehta and KL Mehta for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J
The appellant is the Ruler of the former Indian State of Jaora
He had money dealings with the respondent
By an agreement dated February 23 1957
the appellant and the respondent agreed to refer their disputes regarding those dealings to the arbitration of Lala Durgashankar
On the same date the arbitrator made an award
By this award the arbitrator found that a sum of Rs 160000 was due to the respondent from the appellant and directed that this sum would be payable in eight quarterly installments the first four installments to be of Rs 21000 each and the next four instalments to be of Rs 19000 each the amount of interest would be payable in another quarterly instalment the respondent would have a first charge on the sums receivable by the appellant from the Government of India as privy purse and would be entitled to realise those sums under a letter of authority issued by the appellant and if the Government would raise any objection to the payment the respondent would have the right to realise the dues from the personal property of the appellant
Some the items of the loans in respect of which the award was made were secured on lands and ornaments
The award therefore provided The documents relating to debts obtained on lands and ornaments shall remain as before till the payment of the debts and they shall also remain as securities till then and the Nawab Sahab shall have no right to transfer the land
 The award was signed by the arbitrator and also by the appellant and the respondent
203 On the same day the arbitrator filed the award in the Court of the District Judge Ratlam
Notice of filing of the award under section 14 of the Indian was duly served on the parties
On March 9 1957 an agent of the appellant filed a written submission accepting the award and requesting the Court to pass a decree in terms of the award
But on the same day an application was made by another agent of the appellant intimating that steps would be taken for setting aside the award
The Court fixed March 23 1957 for firing the objection
The time was subsequently extended up to April 2 1957
On that day an application was filed on behalf of the appellant praying for setting aside the award
But on April 5 1957 an application was filed on behalf of the appellant withdrawing the objections and asking the Court to pass a decree in terms of the award subject to the modification that the amount of the award would be payable in quarterly instalments of Rs 13000 each
This application was signed by the respondent in token of his consent to the modification of the amount of the instalments
On April 30 1957
the arbitrator filed the relevant papers
On the same day an agent of the appellant filed an application praying for setting aside the compromise and the award
The case was fixed for hearing on June 19 1957
On that date
the Court received by registered post an application from the appellant withdrawing the objections and praying for an order in accordance with the compromise application filed on April 5 1957
In the circumstances on June 19 1957 the Court recorded the compromise and passed a decree in terms of the award as modified by the compromise
The appellant filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court Appeal No 81 of 1957 under section 39 of the Indian against the order dated June 19 1957 treating it as an order refusing to set aside the award
The appellant also filed Appeal No 82 of 1957 under 0431m of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated June 19 1957 recording the compromise
In the meantime
the respondent started Execution Case No 5 of 1957
and on September 9 1957 obtained an ex parte order for transfer of the decree to the Court of the District Judge
Delhi
On November 11957
the Central Government gave a certificate under s 863 read with section 8713 of the Code of Civil Procedure
1908 cpnsenting to the execution of the decree against the properties of the appellant
On November 8 1957
the District Judge
Delhi passed a prohibitory order under O 21
r 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of sums payable to the appellant on account of the privy purse
By letter dated December 26
1957 the Central Government informed the appellant of the prohibitory order
On January 8 1958 the appellant applied to the Court of the District Judge
Ratlam praying for vacating the order of transfer of the decree and for cancellation of the certificate issued under O 21
r 6b of the Code of Civil Procedure
By order dated March 15 1958
the Court recalled the decree and cancelled the certificate as prayed for
on the ground that the amount receivable by the appel 204 lant on account of his privy purse was not attachable
The respondent preferred Appeal No 33 of 1958 before the High Court against order
By another order dated January 7 1959 the District Judge Ratlam dismissed certain objections of the appellant filed in Execution Case No 2 of 1958
We are informed that the appellant flied before the High Court Appeal No 13 of 1959 from this order
Appeals Nos 81 and 82 of 1957 33 of 1958 and 13 of 1959 were heard and disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment on October 10 1960
The High Court dismissed Appeals Nos 81 and 82 of 1957 and 13 of 1959 preferred by the appellant and allowed Appeal No 33 of 1958 preferred by the respondent
The appellant has referred to this Court Civil Appeal No 568 of 1963 against the order of the High Court passed in Appeal No 33 of 1958
He has also preferred Civil Appeal No 767 of 1963 from the order of the High Court passed in Appeals Nos 81 and 82 of 1957
Civil Appeals Nos 568 and 767 of 1963 were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment
On behalf of the appellant Mr Pathak raised three contentions only
He argued that 1 the award affected immovable property of the value of more than Rs 100 and as it was not registered no decree could be passed in terms of the award 2the proceedings under section 14 of the Indian were incompetent in the absence of the consent of the Central Government under section 861 read with section 87B Code of Civil Procedure and the decree passed in those proceedings is without jurisdiction and null and void and 3 the amount receivable by the appellant from the Central Government as his privy purse is a political pension within the meaning of section 601g Code of Civil Procedure and is not liable to attachment or sale in execution of the decree
These contentions are disputed by Mr Iyengar on behalf of the respondent
The first two contentions of Mr Pathak arise in Civil Appeal No 767 of 1963 and the third contention arises in Civil Appeal No 568 of 1963
The first contention raised by Mr Pathak must be rejected
The award stated that the existing documents relating to
debts obtained on lands would remain as before and they would remain as securities till payment of the debts and the appellant would have no right to transfer the land
This portion of the award stated an existing fact
It did not create or of its own force declare any interest in any immovable property
Consequently the document did not come within the purview of section 17 of the Indian  and was not required to be registered
The second contention of Mr Pathak raises questions of construction of sections 86 and 87B of the Code of Civil Procedure
By reason of section 861 read with section 87B no Ruler of any former Indian State may be sued in any Court otherwise competent to try the suit except with the consent of the Central Government
 Section 205 862 provides that the requisite consent may be given with respect to a specified suit or with respect to several specified suits or with respect to all suits of any specified class or classes Section 86 plainly deals with a special class of suits and this conclusion is reinforced by the heading of Part IV Suit in Particular Cases in which sections 86 and 87B appear
Order 4 rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure provides that every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court or such other officer as it appoints in this behalf
In the context of section 176 of the Government of India Act 1935 Mahajan and Mukherjea observed that the expression sue means the enforcement of a claim or civil right by means of legal proceedings see Province Bombay v KS Advani and others1
But in the context of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 Lord Russell of Killowen observed in Hansraj Gupta vs Official Liquidator Dehra Dun Mussorrie Electric Tramway Co2 The word suit  ordinarily means and apart from some context must be taken to mean a civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint And construing section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure Shah J speaking on behalf of this Court observed in Bhagwat Singh vs State Rajasthan3 The appellant is recognised under article 36622 of the Constitution as a Ruler of an Indian State but section 86 in terms protects a Ruler from being sued  and not against the institution of any other proceeding which is not in the nature of a suit
A proceeding which does not commence with a plaint or petition in the nature of plaint or where the claim is not in respect of dispute ordinarily triable in a Civil Court would prima facie not be regarded as falling within section 86 Code of Civil Procedure
 Now a proceeding under section 14 read with section 17 of the Indian for the passing of a judgment and decree on an award does not commence with a plaint or a petition in the nature of a plaint and cannot be regarded as a suit and the parties to whom the notice of the filing of the award is given under section 142 cannot be regarded as sued in any Court otherwise competent to try the suit within the meaning of section 861 read with section 87B Code of Civil Procedure
Accordingly the institution of this proceeding against the Ruler of a former Indian State is not barred by section 861 read with section 87B Section 141 Code of Civil Procedure does not attract the provisions of section 861 read with section 87B to the proceedings under section 14 of the Indian 
Section 861 read with section 87B confers upon the Rulers of former Indian States substantive rights of im 11950 SCR 621 at pp
661 21932 LR IA1319
3  at pp
445 446
206 munity from suits
Section 141 makes applicable to other proceedings only those provisions of the Code which deal with procedure and not those which deal with substantive rights
Nor does section 41a of the Indian carry the matter any further
By that section the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are made applicable to all proceedings before the Court under the Act
Now by its own language section 861 applies to suits only and section 141 Code of Civil Procedure does not attract the provisions of section 861 to proceedings other than suits
Accordingly by the conjoint application of section 41aof the Indian and sections 861 and 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions of section 861 are not attracted to a proceeding under section 14 of the Indian 
It follows that the Court was competent to entertain the proceedings under section 14 of the Indian and to pass a decree against the appellant in those proceedings though no consent to the institution of those proceedings had been given by the Central Government
A sovereign foreign State and a Ruler of such State may enjoy a wider immunity from legal proceedings other than suits under the rules of International Law recognised by our Courts but the appellant is not now a Ruler of a sovereign State and cannot claim immunity from proceedings other than suits
The second contention of Mr Pathak must therefore be rejected
The third contention of Mr Pathak raises the question whether an amount payable to a Ruler of a former Indian State as privy purse is a political pension within the meaning of section 601g Code of Civil Procedure
The word pension in section 601g Code of Civil Procedure implies periodical payments of money by the Government to the pensioner
See Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad vs Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd1 And in Bishambhar Nath vs Nawab Imdad Ali Khan2 Lord Watson observed A pension which the Government of India has given a guarantee that it will pay by a treaty obligation contracted with another sovereign power appears to their Lordships to be in the strictest sense a political pension
The obligation to pay as well as the actual payment of the pension must in such circumstances be ascribed to reasons of State policy
 Now the history of the integration and the ultimate absorption of the Indian States and of the guarantee for payment of periodical sums as privy purse to the Rulers of the former Indian States are well known
Formerly Indian States were semi sovereign vassal States under the suzerainty of the British Crown
With the declaration of Independence the paramountly of the British Crown lapsed as from August 15 1947 and the Rulers of Indian States 207 became politically independent sovereigns
The Indian States parted with their sovereignty in successive stages firstly on accession to the Dominion of India secondly on integration of the States into sizable administrative units and on closer accession to the Dominion of India and finally on adoption of the Constitution of India and extinction of the separate existence of the States and Unions of States
During the second phase of this political absorption of the States the Rulers of the Madhya Bharat States including the Ruler of Jaora State entered into a Covenant on April 22 1948 for the formation of the United State of Gwalior Indore and Malwa Madhya Bharat
By article II of the Covenant the Covenanting States agreed to unite and integrate their territories into one State
Article VI provided that the Ruler of each Covenanting State shall not later than July 1 1948 make over the administration of the State to the Rajpramukh and thereupon all rights authority and jurisdiction belonging to the Ruler and appertaining or incidental to the Government of the State would vest in the United 
State of Madhya Bharat
Article XI1 provided that the Ruler of each Covenanting State shall be entitled to receive annually from the revenues of the United State for his privy purse the amount specified against that Covenanting State in Schedule I In Sch
I a sum of Rs 175000 was specified against the State of Jaora
Article XI2 provided that the amount of the privy purse was intended to cover all the expenses of the Ruler and his family including expenses of the residence marriage and other ceremonies and neither be increased nor reduced for any reason whatsoever
Article XI3 provided that the Rajpramukh would cause the amount to be paid to the Ruler in four equal instalments at the beginning of each quarter in advance
Article XI4 provided that the amount would be free of alI taxes whether imposed by the Government of the United State or by the Government of India
Article XIII of the Covenant secured to the Ruler of each Covenanting State all personal privileges dignities and titles then enjoyed by them
Article XIV guaranteed the succession according to law and custom to the gadding of each Covenanting State and to the personal rights privileges dignities and titles of the Ruler
The Covenant was signed by all the Rulers of the Covenanting States
At the foot of the Covenant it was stated that The Government of India hereby concur in the above Covenant and guarantee all its provisions In confirmation of this consent and guarantee the Covenant was signed by a Secretary to the Government of India
On the coming into force of the Constitution of India the territories of Madhya Bharat became an integral part of India
Article 291 of the Constitution provided Where under any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State before the commencement of this Constitution the payment of any sums free 208 of tax has been guaranteed or assured by the Government of the Dominion of India to any Ruler of such State as privy purse a such sums shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India and b the sums so paid to any Ruler shall be exempt from all taxes on income In view of the guarantee by the Government of the Dominion of India to the Ruler of Jaora State in the Covenant for the formation of the United State of Madhya Bharat the payment of the sums specified in the covenant as privy purse to the Ruler became charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and became payable to him free from all taxes on income
Article 362 provides that in the exercise of the legislative and executive powers due regard shall be had to the guarantee given in any such covenant as is referred to in article 291 with respect to the personal rights privileges and dignities of the Ruler of an Indian State
Article 3631 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution the Courts would have no jurisdiction in any dispute arising out of any provision in any covenant entered into by any Ruler of an Indian State to which the Government of the Dominion of India was a party or in any dispute in respect of any right accruing under or any liability or obligation arising out of any of the provisions of the Constitution relating to any such covenant
Article 36622 provides that the expression Ruler in relation to an Indian State means a person by whom the covenant referred to in article 2991 was entered into and who for the time being is recognised by the President as the Ruler of the State and includes any person who for the time being is recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler
Now the Covenant entered into by the Rulers of Madhya Bharat States was a treaty entered into by the Rulers of independent States by which they gave up their sovereignty over their respective territories and vested it in the new United State of Madhya Bharat
The Covenant was an act of State and any violation of its terms cannot form the subject of any action in any municipal courts
The guarantee given by the Government of India was in the nature of a treaty obligation contracted with the sovereign Rulers of Indian States and cannot be enforced by action in municipal courts
Its sanction is political and not legal
On the coming into force of the Constitution of India the guarantee for the payment of periodical sums as privy purse is continued by article 291 of the Constitution but its essential political character is preserved by article 363 of the Constitution and the obligation under this guarantee cannot be enforced in any municipal court
Moreover if the President refuses to recognise the person by whom the covenant was entered into as the Ruler of the State he would not be entitled to the amount payable as privy purse under article 291
209 Now the periodical payment of money by the Government to a Ruler of a former Indian State as privy purse on political considerations and under political sanctions and not under a right legally enforceable in any municipal court is strictly a political pension within the meaning of section 601g of the Code of Civil Procedure
The use of the expression privy purse instead of the expression pension is due to historical reasons
The privy purse satisfies all the essential characteristics of a political pension and as such is protected from execution under section 601g Code of Civil Procedure
Moreover an amount of the privy purse receivable from the Government cannot be said to be a debt or other property over which or the proceeds of which he has disposing power within the main part of section 601Code of Civil Procedure
It follows that the third contention of Mr Pathak must be accepted and it must be held that the amounts of the privy purse are not liable to attachment or sale in execution of the respondent s decree
The third contention is raised in Civil Appeal No 568 of 1963 arising out of Appeal No 33 of 1958
It follows that Civil Appeal No 568 of 1963 must be allowed
All the contentions raised in Civil Appeal No 767 of 1963 arising from Appeals Nos 81 and 82 of 1957 fail and accordingly this appeal must be dismissed
In the result Civil Appeal No 568 of 1963 is allowed the order of the High Court in Appeal No 33 of 1958 is set aside and the order of the District Judge dated March 15 1958 is restored with costs in this Court only
Civil Appeal No 767 of 1963 is dismissed with costs
Appeal 568 of 1963 allowed
Appeal 767 of 1963 dismissed


Summary:
The appellant who was a Ruler of a former Indian State had money dealings with the respondent
They referred their disputes to an arbitrator who made his award directing the appellant to pay
a certain sum of money in installments
The award also stated that the existing documents relating to debts on lands would remain as before and would remain as securities till the payment of debts The arbitrator filed the award into court and the court after notice to the parties passed a decree in terms of a compromise modifying the award
The respondent started execution proceedings and the court passed a prohibitory order under OXXI r 46 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 in respect of the sums payable to the appellant by the Central Government on account of the privy purse but on the application of the appellant that order was vacated
The appellant and respondent filed appeals in the High COurt against the various orders and the High Court decided all the appeals against the appellant
In the appeal to the Supreme Court it was contended that i as the award affected immovable property of the value of more than Rs 100 and was not registered a decree could not be passed in terms the award ii the proceedings under the Indian  were incompetent in the absence of the consent of the Central Government under sections 861 and 87B of the Code and therefore the decree passed in those proceedings was without jurisdiction and void and iii the amount receivable by the appellant as his privy purse was a political pension within the meaning of section 601g of the Code and not liable to attachment or sale in execution of a decree
HELD iThe award did not create or of its own force declare any interest in any immovable property and since it did not come within the purview of section 17 of the  was not required to be registered
204 H ii A proceeding under section 14 read with section 17 of the  for the passing of a judgment and decree on an award does not commence with a plaint or a petition in the nature of a plaint and cannot be regarded as a suit and the parties to whom the notice of the filing of the award is given under section 142 cannot be regarded as sued in any Court otherwise competent to try the suit within the meaning of section 861 read with section 87B of the Code
Neither are those provisions of the Code attracted by reason of section 41a of the or section 141 of the Code
It follows that the COurt was competent to entertain the proceedings under section 14 of the and pass a decree in those proceedings though no consent to the institution of the proceedings had been given by the Central Government
205 G H 206 B D 202 iii The amounts of the privy purse of the appellant were not liable to attachment or sale in execution of the respondent s decree
209 C D The periodical payment of money by the Government to a Ruler of a former Indian State as privy purse on political considerations and under political sanctions and not under a right legally enforceable in any municipal court is strictly a political pension within the meaning of section 601g of the Code
The privy purse satisfies all the essential characteristics of a political pension and as such is protected from execution under section 601 g
209 A C