SATRUCHARLA VIJAYA RAMA RAJU versus NIMMAKA JAYA RAJU AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 821 · Decided: 27-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

,. 
SA TRUCHARLA VIJA YA RAMA RAJU 
A 
v. 
NIMMAKA JA YA RAJU AND ORS. 
, OCTOBER 27, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., C.K. THAKKERAND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, J.J.] B 
Res Judicata : 
Election Law-Representation of Peoples Act, 1951-Sections 5, 80, 
100(/)(d)(i), JJ6A-CPC, 1908-Section II Expln. VI-Election petition C 
challenging election of returned candidate reserved for SC candidate-
Candidate describing himself to be 'Kanda Dora' tribe assailed as he belonged 
to 'Kshatriya' caste -challenge by another person on same ground in 
earlier election petition-Held, earlier petition not being inter-parties cannot 
operate as Res judicata. 
Evidence Act-Sections 41, 42, 43-Election petition held, is not a suit 
of general nature or a representative action for adjudication of the status of 
a person, and the same cannot be treated as a judgment in rem-The 
conclusion arrived in earlier proceedings based in evidence in that 
D 
proceedings by itself is not sufficient to rebut the present claim. 
E 
The appellant successfully contested the State Assembly Elections in 
1999 from No. 8 Naguru (ST) assembly constituency in the State of Andhra 
Pradesh. His election was challenged by respondent No. I, under Section 80 
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Section 5 and 
IOO(l)(d)(i) of the Act. The first respondent contented that the appellant was F 
not qualified to contest from a constituency reserved for the scheduled tribes, 
he being a 'Kshatriya'; that his claim that he belongs to the "Konda Dora" 
tribe, was not true; and that since he was ineligible to contest from the 
constituency, his election was liable to be declared void and set aside and that 
he may be declared elected instead. 
G 
The appellant contested the election petition. He pleaded that he 
belonged to the" Konda Dora" tribe which was a notified Scheduled Tribe, 
that he was neither a 'Kondaraju' nor a 'Kshatriya ', that even otherwise, 
'Kondaraju' and "Kanda Dora" were synonymous and the "Konda Dora" tribe 
821 
II 
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A was incluede in the list of Schedule Tribes; that his earlier election from 
No.8 Naguru (ST) assembly constituency, the self-same constituency, was 
challenged by a voter on the very same ground that he did not belong to the 
"Konda Dora" tribe, and it was dismissed by the Judge and the said decision 
barred a fresh enquiry into the same question in the present election petition 
B 
and the decision therein was conclusive on his status; and that his ancestors 
and himself described themselves as 'Kshatriyas' in view of the status enjoyed 
by them in their tribe and not because they belonged to the 'Kshatriya' 
community. 
The trial Judge set aside the election of the appellant. The prayer of 
C the first respondent to declare him elected, was declined on the ground that 
such relief was not liable to be granted at that point of time and in view of the 
dissolution of the assembly itself. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that the High Court was 
wrong in holding that the decision in E.P. 13of1983 did not operate as res 
D judicata and was not conclusive on the status of the appellant; that the 
judgment was one in rem; that alternatively the said judgment operated as a 
judicial precedent and should have been accepted as such by the Judge; that 
it was against judicial discipline for a subsequent Judge assigned to try an 
election petition, to differ from the conclusion of the High Court rendered in 
an earlier election petition on the status of the appellant and judicial discipline 
E warranted that the matter should have been referred to a Division Bench for 
decision, in case the judge was inclined to disagree, that the issue of the 
certificate under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes 
and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 
1993 was conclusive and binding on the proceedings under the Representation 
F of the People Act, 1951; that the High Court was in error in its appreciation 
of the evidence and the finding that the appellant did not belong to the "Konda 
Dora" tribe was clearly erroneous; that merely because a person belonging 
to a Scheduled Tribe described himself as a 'Kshatriya' or claimed to be a 
'Kshatriya', he would not become a 'Kshatriya' or cease to be a tribal and 
this aspect has not been properly appreciated by the Judge; that the 
G appreciation of the evidence by the Judge was perverse and 

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