DASANGLU PUL versus LUPALUM KRI

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 1021 · Decided: 19-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 1021 : 2023 INSC 930
1021
CASE DETAILS
DASANGLU PUL
v.
LUPALUM KRI
(Civil Appeal No.3710 of 2023)
OCTOBER 19, 2023
[A. S. BOPANNA AND 
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issues for consideration: Whether the indication made by the 
appellant-returned candidate in Form-26, as ‘not applicable’ in the column 
relating to ‘spouse’, in the facts of the present case would amount to 
non-disclosure of the properties owned by her spouse; and whether that 
would amount to a defect of substantial character requiring rejection of the 
nomination papers of a successful candidate after the election as having 
materially aﬀ ected the result.
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s.100(1)(d)(iv) – Appellant-
returned candidate and her late husband who was the sitting member of 
the Legislative Assembly from 45-Hyuliang (ST) Assembly Constituency 
belonged to the Mishmi tribe in Arunachal Pradesh and as permitted 
under the custom of the said tribe, he had married the appellant as 
his third wife – High Court declared the election of the appellant from 
the said Constituency as void u/s.100(1)(d)(iv) holding that the details 
of the property owned by her late husband were not indicated in the 
relevant column of Form-26 and when the legal heir certiﬁ cate issued in 
favour of the ﬁ rst wife of appellant’s late husband had been set aside as 
on the date when the nomination paper was ﬁ led by the appellant, the 
properties relating to which the legal heir certiﬁ cate had been issued 
being that of the spouse ought to have been mentioned in the Form-26 
of the aﬃ  davit – Propriety of:
Held: The case as set up by the appellant was that as per the custom 
followed by the Mishmi tribe it is only the ﬁ rst wife who succeeded to the 
1022 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
properties of the husband if the deceased at the time of death had more than 
one wife and as such the appellant had no claim whatsoever over the said 
properties – Neither as on the date of the death of the spouse nor on the date 
of ﬁ ling the nomination for the election at the ﬁ rst instance in the year 2016 
or at the point when the nomination was ﬁ led on 22.03.2019, the property 
left behind by the deceased was claimed by the appellant – Further, much 
has been made about the challenge raised by the appellant to the legal heir 
certiﬁ cate dtd.04.05.2017 issued in favour of the ﬁ rst wife which had been 
set aside as on the date of ﬁ ling the nomination on 22.03.2019 – Apart from 
the fact that the dispute was still at large before the forum to which it was 
remitted, in any event, legal heir certiﬁ cate by itself cannot be construed as 
a document of title to the property – It is a mode to determine the heirship 
based on which the consequential actions would follow – In the facts and 
circumstances of the case, the disclosure of the properties in the column in 
Form-26 to indicate the properties belonging to the spouse would not arise, 
ﬁ rstly, since the spouse was not alive and on his death the succession had 
opened, even otherwise the appellant had not claimed any interest in the 
properties which are the subject matter and belonged to the deceased spouse 
– It is not a case of improperly accepted nomination and it certainly has not 
materially aﬀ ected the result of the election as contemplated in s.100(1)(d)(i) 
(iv) – Contention of the respondent that it would amount to non-disclosure 
and therefore a defect of substantial character not accepted – Impugned 
order set aside – Election Petition dismissed – Conduct of Election Rules, 
1961. [Paras 9, 13, 14, 17 and 18]
Election – Election Petition – Scope of interference – Plea of the 
respondent that there is no uniformity in the opinion expressed by the 
witness with regard to the custom followed by the Mishmi tribe:
Held: In the scope available to this Court in an election petition it 
would not be appropriate for this Court to either examine the customary 
right or the right to inheritance – It would be appropriate only to notice as 
to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case where the appellant 
herself has no claim to the properties after the succession has opened, the 
non-mentioning of the properties as belonging to that of the spouse was a 
substantial defect. [Para 9]
1023
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Kisan Shankar Kathore vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant & Ors. (2014) 14 
SCC 162 : 2014 [7]SCR 258 – distinguished.
Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Si
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.