CHATTANATHA KARAYALAR versus RAMACHANDRA IYER AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 477 · Decided: 19-09-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIVIAN BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

2S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT RE.l'ORTS 
477 
91. The question whether a party to an election pet~­
tion is entitled to a notice under the proviso in respect 
of the very charges w!Hch were the subject-matter of 
enquiry in the petition itself, has been considered by 
this Court in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1955, and it has 
been held therein that if the party had opportunity 
given to him in the hearing of the petition to meet the 
very charge in respect of which a finding is to be re-
-corded under section 99( 1) (a), then he is not entitled 
to a further notice in respect of 
the same matter, 
under 
the proviso. 
In the 
present case, 
the finding 
under section 
99(1)(a) relates 
to the very payments 
which were the subject-matter of enquiry in the elec-
tion petition, 
and therefore no notice was required to 
be given to the appellant under 
the pro·1iso. This 
objection also fails, and the appeal must accordingly 
be dismissed. 
The respondent has stated through his counsel Shri 
Naunit Lal that he does not propose to contest the 
appeal. 
There will accordingly be 
no order as to 
costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
CHATTANATHA KARAYALAR 
"· 
RAMACf{A.NDRA 
IYER 
AND 
ANOTHER. 
{V1v1AN BnsE, VENKATARAMA AYYAR and B. P. SINHA JJ.] 
Election Dispute-Returned candidate alleged to be disqualified 
for being chosen as a member-Hindu fathe1· entering into Government 
contt·act, if does so en behalf of the undivided family-Presumption 
ef Hindu Law-Finding of benami, if liable to be intei'fered with in 
Special appeal-Representation of the People Act (XL!Il of 1951), 
SS. 7(d), 9(2}. 
There is no presumption in Hindu Law that a business stand-
ing in the name of a member of the Hindu joint family is joint 
family business, even when that member is the manager or the father. 
There is this difference between the position of the father start-
ing new business and a mere manager doing so that while the 
debts r.ontracted by the father in such business are binding on the 
sons on the theory of a son's pious obligation 
to pay his father's 
debt, those contracted by the latter are not binding on the other 
1955 
S. Khat/er S/tn'il 
v. 
, 
.\funnruwami 
Gounder and others 
V enkatarama 
AY,var J. 
1955 
S1ptemb11 19 
1955 
ChaJtanatha 
Karoyalar 
"• 
Ramachandra 
Iyer and another. 
478 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS, 
[1955} 
mcn1bers of the family unless, at least, it can be shown that the 
starting of the business was necessary. 
Ram Nath v. Chiranii Lal, ([1934] l.L.R. 57 AIL 605), Chhotey 
Lal Chaudhury v. Dalip Narain Sing/,., ([1938] l.L.R. 17 Patna 386), 
Hayat Alia Shah v. Nern Chand (A.LR. [1945] Lah. 169), referred to. 
But this distinctive position of the father docs not by itself 
make the new business started by him a joint business of the an-
divided family. 
The question of benaru; is a question of fact and \Vhcrc there is. 
evidence to support a finding that a person is a 
bcnamidar for 
another, the Supreme Court in a Special appeal will not interfere 
with it. 
Consequently, in a case where an election was challenged on the 
ground 
that 
the candidate returned 
was intcrt:sted in a contqct 
entered into by his father, bcnami in the name of another, with the 
Government for felling trees and transporting timber, and as such 
disqualified to stand ior election under s. 7(d) read with s. 9(2) of 
the Representation of the 
People Act and the Tribunal found on 
evidence that the father was the real contracting party but without 
consid_cring the 
evidence 
on the other point which, if believed,. 
might sustain a finding 
that the father 
was acting on behalf 
of the fa.mily, presumed as a matter of law that the son had -interest 
in the contract and declared the election void. 
Held, that the Tribunal took an erroneous view of the law and 
made a wrong presumption, so its decision must be set aside, and· as 
the findings are not sufficient for disposal of the matter the case 
must be remitted back for rehearing on the evidence on record. 
CML 
APPELLATE 
Jua1soicnoN: Civil Appeal 
No. 
136 of 1955. 
Appeal by Special Leave from 
the Judgment and 
Order dated the 15th November 1954 
of 
the Election 
Tribunal, 
Quilon, 
Travancore-Cochin, 
in 
Election 
Petition No. 18 of 1954. 
S. Mohan Kumara Mangalam, H. /. Umrigar and 
Ra;inder Narain, for the appellant. 
T. R. Balakrishnan, 
for respondent No. 
1. 
1955. 
September 
19. 
The 
Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR 
J.-This 
is an 
appeal by 
special leave aga

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