LexBADRINARAYAN SINGH versus KAMDEO PRASAD SINGH AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
BADRINARAYANSINGH
v.
KAMDEO PRASAD SINGH AND ANOTHER
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKA.R, K. SUBBA RAO,
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. c. SHAH and
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
lflection Di•pute-Resjudicata-Two appeals out of one pro-
ceeding-One Judgment but two separate decreeB-Subject matter
different-Detision, if one-Appeal from one decree only-main-
tainability,-Repretentation of the People Act, 1951 (~3 of 1951),
••. 80, 81, 7.
The Election Tribunal on the petition of the first res-
pondent set aside the election of the appellant J.olding that
the appellant as a Ghatwal, was not a holder of office of profit,
and that he was guilty of corrupt practices. The Election
Tribunal however did hot entertain the first respondent's prayer
to declare him as duly elected.
.
The appellant and the first respondent, both went
up in appeal to the Ifigh Court. Appellant's appeal being
No. 7 was against the order setting aside his electio.n.
The
first respondent's appeal being No. 8 was against the order
not declaring him to be duly elected. Both the appeals were
disposed of by the High Court by one Judgment. The
appellant's appeal. No. 7 was dismissed
holding that the
appellant was not guilty of corrupt practices and that he,
as a Ghatwal, held an office of profit.
The respondent's
appeal No. 8 was allowed declaring him as duly elected.
Two separate decrees were prepared in the two appeals.
The appellant filed this appeal by special leave from
the order in Appeal No. 8 by the first respondent. All the
grounds of the appeal related to the finding of the High Court
that the office of Ghatwal was an office of profit.
A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the first
respondent that this appeal was incompetent as barred by
the principle of resjudicata inasmuch as the appellant did
not appeal against the order of the High Court in Appeal
No. 7 whose dismissal by the High Court confirmed the order
of the Election Tribunal setting a•ide the election of the
appellant; and that it was not open to the appellant to
question the correctness of the finding that he held an office
of profit, which was the basis of the dismissal of appeal No. 7.
Held, that where two appeds arose out of one proceeding,
but the subject matter of each appeal was different, the
759
116l
September 82.
•
1161 .
•
760
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
[1962]
decuion of the High Court in the appeals though •lated in
one judgment, really amounted to two decisions and not to
one deci!ion common to both the appeals. The subject-matter
of appeal No 7 flied by the appellant related to the question
of his election l>eing bad or good. The subject matter of
appeal No. 8 did not relat~ to the validity or otherwise of the
election of the appellant.
It related to the further action to
be taken in case tbe election of the appellant was bad, on the
ground that a G.hatwal holds an office of profit.
The High Clourt came to two decioions, one in respect of
the invalidity of the appellant's election in appeal No. 7. It
came to another decision in appeal No. 8 with respect to the
justification of the claim of the first respondent to be declared
as a duly elected candidate. That so long as the order in the
appellant's appeal No. 7 confirming the order setting aside hia
election on the ground that he wa5 a 11-0lder of an off ice of
profit stands, he cannot queation that finding in the present
appeal, preferred against the decree in the first respondent's
•ppeal No. 8.
;Varhari v. SM.11/car rl950J S. C. R. 754, distinguished.
CrvIL APPELLATE .JunrsDIOTION: Civil Appeal
No. 56~ of 190{).
Appeal by special leave from tl1e judgment
and decree dated March 20, l!l59, of tho Patna
High Court in Election appeal No. 8 of 1958.
J.C. Sinha, D. P. Singh, M. K. Ramamurthi,
R. K. Garg and S. C. Ag11rwala, for tho appellant.
B. C. GTWsli and R. C. Dattti, for res ondont
No. I.
....-~
Udaipralap Singh and P. C. Agarwala, for res·
pondent No. 2.
1961. September 22.
The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
RAOHUBJ.R DAYAL, J. -Badri Narain Singh,
the appellant, and four other persons inoluding
Kam Deo Pratad, respondcnte, were candidates to
the Bihar Legislative Assembly during the las.t
gtnera.l election held in 1957. Two of those candi-
dates withdrew before the relevant date. The
appellant secured the largest number of votes and
was declared elected on March 14, 1957. Respon-
dent No. 2 secured larger number of votes thanExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.