CH. SUBBARAO versus MEMBER, ELECTION TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 213 · Decided: 13-01-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
6 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
213 
addresed to the High Court on this point; and ( 4) there had 
been no mutation in the revenue records when this sale was 
effected and Pir Baksh who was 
examined as a witness 
admitted this 
fact. 
These circumstances 
are 
certainly 
capable of explanation, but they show that the claim of the 
plaintiffs cannot be accepted by 
us 
straightaway and a 
decree passed in their favour. 
In these circumstances, we consider that the proper 
order to pass would be to remit the matter to the trial 
Court for recording a finding as regards the reality of the 
sale on the evidence already on the record and to pass an 
appropriate decree in the suit, that is, if the sale under Ex. 
12(i) were held to be real, the plaintiffs would be entitled 
in addition to the 8 pies share decreed to them by the High 
Court, to a further 2 as 13 gondas odd share belonging 
to Ashfaq which they obtained under Ex. 12 ( c) through 
Pir Baksh, and in the event of the sale not being held to be 
real to no more than what the High Court has decreed. 
With this modification, 
the appeal is dismissed 
with 
COlill. 
Appeal dismissed. 
CH. SUBBARAO 
Y. 
MEMBER, ELECTION TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD 
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND· J. R. MUDHOLl:AR JJ.) 
R1pre1tntation of th• P•ople Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), 11. 80, 31 (3), 
90(3),-.f'ttction Petition-No attutation in the copit1 oj thl 
petition that they •re true copit1-Whlth1r lhtr1 hod bt1n 1ub11-
turl comp/U.nct. 
The third respondent was declared elected to the Lesislalive ~ 
•11 of Andhra Pradesh in the general election held in 1962. Tho appo-
••t, a •oter of tbo constituency ftlcd an election petitioa challeqina 
1914 
Swa/ 
R•IM 
Ihirani 
•• 
Atamabiul 
Tta Co. 
AYY•Tllfll". I. 
1964 
1•nW"'"J, IJ 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1964 
the election of the third respondent on several grounds inclµding corrupt 
C& 
Subbarao practices. 
The petition was acCompanied by the requisite nwnber of 
y.. 
copies which w~re true copies and each of them bore the signature of 
&limber. Election the petitioner. But there was no attestation at the foot of the coPies that 
frllnutal Hydera- they were true copies. 
The third respondent raised various preliminary 
ktl 
objections and the Election Tribunal rejected all of them. 
Thereupon 
he filed writ petition in the High Court praying for the issue of a writ 
quashing the Tribunal's order. 
His main contention was that since 
the copies of the petition did not contain an attestation stating that the 
copies were true copies there has been a violation of the 
mandatory 
provision of s. 80(3) of the Representaion of the People Act, 1951. Tho 
High Court accepted the contention and issued a writ as prayed for. 
The present appeal was filed with special leave granted by this Court. 
HELD: 
(i) If there is a total or complete non compliance with the 
provisions of s. 81(3) the election petition might not be ••aa election 
petition presented in accordance with the provisions of the part" within 
1. 80 of the Act. 
(ii) By the expression ''copy" ins. 81(3) it was meant not an exact 
copy but only one so true that nobody by any possibility misunderstands 
it not being the same as the original. 
Murarka v. Roop Singh [1964] 3 S.C.R. 573, referred lo· 
Noseworthy v. Overseers 
Buckland 
etc., L.R. 9 C. P. 
233 
ancl 
Spic~ v. Bacon, L.R. 2 Ex. D. 463, distinguished. 
(iii) 
In the present case the signatures on the copies cannot be held 
to have been merely intended to be a copy of those on the 
original, 
since a signature in original was not needed on the copy and writing or 
copying out the name of the signatory would suffice. The absence of 
a writing in the copy indicating the signature in the original would not 
detract the copy from being a true copy. 
The facts and circumstance 
of the case show that there has been a substantial compliance with the 
requirement of s. 81(3). The wider question whether s. 81(3) or as part 
thereof is mandatory or directory is left open. 
The appeal is allowed. 
Mur4rka v. Roop Singh [1964] 3 S.C.R. 573 anll Kamara/ Hadar y. 
Xunjer Thevar, [1959] S.C.R. 583. followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 971 
of 1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order 
dated April 15, 1963 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court 
in Writ Petition No. 1096 of 1962. 
P. A. Choudhury and T. V. R. TaJaclwi, for the ap-
pellant. 
• 
6 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REP

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