B. BASAVALINGAPPA versus D. MUNICHINNAPPA

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 316 · Decided: 23-09-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

318 
B.BASAVALINGAPPA 
11. 
D.MUNICIDNNAPPA 
September 23, 1964 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND 
], R MUDHOLKAR JJ.) 
Ekctwn-Scheduled Castes constltuency-Voddar carte whether the 
same as Bhovl caste-Evidence recorded by Tribunal to thu effect whe-
ther pennissib/-Constltution (Scheduhd Castes) Order, 1950. 
A 
B 
M, the candidate elected from Bangalore South (Scheduled 0.Stes) 
constituency claimed to belong to Bhovl caste which was one of the 
C 
~beduled Castes mentioned in the Constitution 
(Scheduled Castes) 
Order, 1950, but in the election petition filed against him by the appel-
lant it was alleged that ho belonged to V oddar caste which was not men-
tioned in the Order and that therefore he was not entitled to stand for 
election from the Scheduled Caste constituency. 
The Election Tribunal 
recorded evidence on behalf of M to the effect that the Voddar caste 
was none other than the Bhovl caste. The Tribunal held on the basis of 
the evidence produced that Bhovl was a sub-caste of the V oddar caste, 
D 
that M did not belong to the Bhovl sub-csste, and that therefore he was 
not entitled to stand from the constituency. The High Court however held 
that although V oddar cute as such was not included in the order, yet 
considering the facts and' circumstances in existence at the time when the 
Order was passed in 1950, the Bhovl caste mentioned therein was the 
aame as the Voddar caste. 
On this finding it dismissed the election peti-
tion. The appellant filed an appeal before this Court by special leave. 
E 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant 
that : ( 1) the High 
Court was wrong in looltin~ into the evidence that was produced before 
the Tribunal and then commg to the conclusion that the caste Bhovl 
mentioned in the Order was meant for the caste Voddar (2) the Tribunal 
1hould not have allowed evidence to be produced which would have the 
effect of modifying the Order which was exhaustive, and gave full parti-
culars of each scheduled caste 
recognised by it 
including alternative 
F 
names and alternative spellinp. 
HELD : From the evidence it was clear that in 1950 when the Order 
was passed there was no caste in the then Mysore State which 
was 
known as Bhovl. The Order could not have intended 
to recognise a 
caste which did not exisL H was therefore necessary to fad out which 
caste was meant by the use of the name 
Bhovl and for that purpose 
evidence was rightly recorded by the Tribunal and acted upon by 
the 
High Court. It is only In such extraordinary circumstances that evidence 
G 
can be so recorded. Generally speaking it would 
not be open to any 
pei:oon to lead evidence to establish that his caste includes or ts the same 
u another caste which I.a notified in the Order. [320A-O; 322F-0]. 
Crv!L APPELLATE JIDtiSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 401 
of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
H 
October 14, 1963, of the Mysore High Court in N.F.A. No. 139 
of 1963 and M.F.A. No. 141 of 1963. 
BASAVALINGAPPA v. MUNICHINNAPPA (Wanchoo J.) 
317 
A 
G. S. Pathak and Dipak Datta Choudhri, for the appellant. 
B 
M. K. Nambiyar, and R. Gopalakrishnan, 
for respondent 
No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wanchoo J. This is an appeal by special leave against the 
judgment of the Mysore High Court in an election matter. An 
election was held to the Bangalore South (Scheduled Castes) 
constituency in February 1962. Four persons stood for election 
including the appellant and Munichinnappa respondent No. 1, 
c who obtained the highest number of votes and was declared 
elected. The appellant then filed an election petition challeng-
ing the election of respondent No. 1 on a number of grounds. In 
the present appeal we are concerned only with one 
ground, 
namely, that respondent No. 1 was not a member of any of the 
scheduled castes mentioned in the Constitution 
(Scheduled 
D Castes) Order, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). 
Respondent No. 1 claimed that he belonged to the scheduled 
caste listed as Bhovi in the Order. The appellant on the other 
hand contended that respondent No. 1 was a Voddar by caste 
and that V oddar was not a scheduled caste specified in the Order 
and consequently respondent No. 1 could not stand for election 
E from a scheduled caste constituency. 
The Election Tribunal 
held that the caste mentioned as 'Bhovi in the Order was a sub-
caste amongst the Voddars and that only t

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