LAXMAN SIDDAPPA NAIK versus KATTIMANI CHANIAPPA JAMAPPANNA & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 805 · Decided: 19-01-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LAXMAN SIDDAPPA NAIK 
v. 
KATTIMANI CHANIAPPA JAMAPPANNA & ORS. 
January 19, 1968 
B 
[M. H!DAYATULLAH, S. M. S!KR! AND K. S. HEGDB, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Constitution <Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950-Caste of candidature-
Burden of proof. 
An unsuccessful candidate for •olection 
to the 
Mysore Legislative· 
Assembly for a seat reserved for a member of the Schedul-:d l'ribes, filed 
an election petition on th·o ground that the other three candidates belonged 
to the Bedar caste, which is not a tribe specified in Part YIU para 2 of 
the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 
1950. 
The 
appellant-the 
succl.!ssful candidate, asserted that he was a Nayaka (which is mentioned at 
item No. 13 in Part VIII (2) of the Order) and Nayakas are also.called 
Bedars. 
The High Court held that there was no Nayaka in this area and 
that the appellant was a Bedar. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : The Pr·esidential o,.Jci· showed that Naikdas or Nayakas are 
to be found not only in ihe districts of Mysore but. also in Maharashtra 
and Raja!:ithan. 
This tribal community was therefore, quite widespread 
and it was not pOssible to say that there was no Nayaka in the district to 
which the appellant belong·,d. 
Even if he was the solidary Nayaka he 
would be covered by the Presidential order and would be .. entitled to stand 
for the reserved s·~at for the tribal· communities mentioned· in the Pre"Siden~ 
tial Order. He claimed to be a. Nayaka and this claim was upheld by the 
Returning Officer. [810 G] 
Once the nomination paper was accepted the burden .must be 3:ssuffied 
again by the party challenging the fact that a candidate belonged to 
a 
particular community. 
If prima facie evidence h:id been led by the elec-
tion petitioner the burden might have shifted to the candidate but as he 
led no evidence whatever he must obviously fail. [809 H; 810 A] 
The election pe~itioner could have provr.d by positive· evidence that the 
appellant was a Bedar. That would have prov·ed that he was not a Nayaka. 
l"o establish the fact evidence was required to show the 
characteristics, 
such as customs of marriages. births; deaths, wdrship, dress, ~cupation 
and the like which distinguish a Bedar from a Nayaka. Evidence was also 
possible to show that the appellant was received in the Bedar community. 
This was capable of being proved by showing inter-marriage, interdinin~, 
community of worship, residence in a particular place and the like. Such 
facts would have led lo the drawing of aQ inference one way or the other. 
A bare assertion by the election petitioner that the appellant is a Bedar 
does not suffice to displace the acceptance of the nomination paper or the 
claim of the appellant that he is a Nayaka. [808 D-F) 
Abhoy l'ada Saha v, Sudhir Kumar Monda/, [1966] supp. S.C.R. 387, 
B. B·asavalingc.ppa v. D. Munichinnappa & Ors. A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1269 and 
llhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh & Ors. A.I.R. 1965 S.C, 1957, referred to. 
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1303 of 
1967. 
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of People Act 
19 51 from the judgment and order dated July 24, 1967 of the 
, 
·1!06 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ t '168) 2 S.C.R. 
Mysore High Court, Bangalore in Ele<.,tion pctitio,1 No. I 0 of 
1967. 
S. S. Ja .. a/i and M. Veerappa, for the appellant. 
R. Gopa/akrishnan, for respondent no. I. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, J. 
This is an appeal under s. 116-A 
of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the judgment and 
order, July 24, 1967, of the High Court of Mysore in Election 
Petition No. 10 of 1967. The High Court has ,;et aside the elec-
tion of L&xman Siddappa Naik, who is the appellan: before us. 
The appellant had stood from Gokak constituency of the Mysore 
Legislative Assembly for a seat reserved for a member of the 
Scheduled Tribes specified in Part VIII para 2 of !he Constitution 
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. 
Five others had tiled nomina-
tion· papers. 
The nomination paper of one Kaushalya Devi was 
rejected by the Returning Officer and one Bhimgouda Mallagouda 
Patil withdrew from the contest within the time permi'.ted by the 
Act. 
Thcte were thus four contesting candidates. The result of 
the poll was as follows :-
1. Shri Laxman Siddappa Naik 
17522 
2. Shri Parasappa Hanmantha Karaing 
7044 
3. Shri Patel Shivangowd Malgowd 
5996 
4. Shri Kattimani Chandappa Jampanna 
620 
The election petition was 
filed 
by 
the last candidate 

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