RATTAN ANMOL SINGH AND ANOTHER versus ATMA RAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 481 · Decided: 21-05-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA, VIVIAN BOSE, T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
"' 
• 
'~ 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
481 
would be of no avail to them when the alienation is not 
binding on the whole estate but only on the woman's 
estate of Rashmoni." 
In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is 
quite proper. On this finding the security bond could 
operate only on the widow's estate of Rashmoni and 
it was that interest alone which passed to the purchaser 
at the mortgage 
sale. 
The subsequent transferee 
could not claim to have acquired any higher right 
than what his predecessor had and it 1s immaterial 
whether he bona fide paid the purchase money or took 
proper legal advice. The result is that in our opinion 
the decision of the High Court is right and this appeal 
must stand dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
RATIAN 
ANMOL 
SINGH 
AND 
ANOTHER 
ti. 
ATMA RAM AND OTHERS. 
[MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE and 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (XLill of 1951), ss. 2 
(J)(k), 33(1) and (2), 36(2)(d) and (")-Representation of the People 
(Conduct of Elections and Election Petitions) Rules, 1951, r. 2(2)-
Nomination paper-Subscribed by illiterate proposer and seconder-
Containing thumb-mark instead of signatures-No attestation thereof 
-Validity 
of-Attestation-Whether 
a 
necessary 
formality-At 
what stage it must exist~Whether can be validated at scrutiny .stage. 
Under section 33( 1) of the Representation of the People Act, 
1951, each nomination paper should be "subscribed" by a proposer 
and a seconder. Where the proposer and the seconder of a nomi-
nation paper (as in the present case) 
arc illiterate and so place 
thumb-marks instead of signatures and those thumb-marks arc not 
attested, 
the nomination paper is 
invalid as 
attestation 
in the 
prescribed manner in such a case is necessary because of rule 2(2) 
of the Representation of the People (Conduct of Elections and 
Election Petitions) Rules, 1951, which requires it. 
Signing, whenever 
signature is necessary, must be 
in strict 
accordance with the requirements of the Act and where the signa-
ture cannot be written 
it 
must 
be 
authorised 
in the manner 
prescribed by the Rub. 
&.a 
1954 
X•li1luaker Dt11 
tmtl Anolher 
v. 
Dhirmdra Nath 
Polro and Qlhus 
M~ '"'· 
'95+ 
JWj1 .. AlllflOI 
Singh ~d {ftWlher 
v. 
Atma' Ram 
and Others. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
Attestation is' not a mere ttchnical or 
unsubstantial 
requir.e-
ment within the meaning of section 36( 4) .of the Act a11d cannot be 
dispensed with. 
· 
The attestation and the satisfa,ction must exist at the presenta-
tion stage and a total omissiOn of 
such an essential feature 
can-
not be subsequently validated at the scrutiny 
stage any more than 
the omission of a candidate to sign at all could have been. 
Section· 36 of the Act is mandatory and enjoins the Returning 
Officer to refuse any nomination when there has been "any failure 
to comply with any of the provisions of section 33." 
CiV1L 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeals 
No" 213A and 2!3B of 1953. 
Appeals by Special Leave against the Judgment 
and Order dated the 24th June, 
1953, of the Election 
Tribunal, 
Ludhiana, 
m 
Election 
Petition 
No. 
153 
of 1952. 
C. 
K. 
Daphtary, 
Solicitor-General 
for 
lndia. 
(Harbans Singh Doabia and Rajinder Narain, with 
himJ for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 213A. 
Tilak Raj Bhasin and Harbans Singh for respond-
ent No. 2 in Civil Appeal No. 213A and the appellant 
in Civil Appeal No. 213B. 
N aunit Lal for respondents Nos. 3 and 19 in both 
the appeals. 
. 
r 
1954. May 21. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
. 
J 
BosE J.-These are two appeals against the decision 
orthe Election Tribunal at Ludhiana. 
The contest was for two seats in the Punjab ' 
Legislative Assembly. 
The constituency 
1s 
a double 
member constituency, ·one seat being general and the 
other reserved for a Scheduled Caste. The first respon-
dent 
1s Atma Ram. He was 
a candidate 
for the 
reserved seat 
but his nomination was rejected 
hy 
the 
Returning Officer at the scrutiny stage and so he was 
unable to contest the 
election. The successful candi-
dates were Rattan Anmol Singh, the ~ppellant in Civil 
Appeal No. 213-A of 1953, for the general seat and 
Ram Prakash, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 213-B 
.of 1953, for the reserved. 
Atma Ram filed the present 
election petition. The Election Tribunal decided 
in 
...
' 
• 
• 
~·. 
-
.. 
s:e.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
his favour 
by a majority of two to one and declar

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