LexSOBHA HYMAVATHI DEVI versus SETTI GANGADHARA SWAMY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SOBHA HYMA V ATHI DEVI v. SETT! GANGADHARA SWAMY AND ORS. JANUARY 28, 2005 [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 332 - Constituency reserved for C Scheduled Tribes-Election of appellant set aside by High Court on the ground that she belonged to a forward caste-Appellant was born of a forward caste father and Scheduled Tribe mother-Claim of appellant that her parents were not formally married, and she being illegitimate, belonged to caste of her mother and further that she was brought up as a member of Scheduled Tribe not substantiated-Claim of acquired membership in community of husband, D who belonged to Scheduled Tribe, also not acceptable, since reservation would benefit only those who belonged to a Scheduled Caste/Tribe and not those who claim to acquire the status by marriage-Hence, election of Appellant rightly declared invalid-Election Laws. Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward E Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993-Section 3- Certificate under-Evidentiary value of-Held, such certificate is confined in its validity to elections to local authorities and co-operative institutions - It does not embrace an election to the Legislative Assembly or to the Parliament. Election of appellant to a Scheduled Tribe Assembly constituency F was challenged before High Court on ground that she belonged to a forward community, Patnaik Sisto Karnam and was hence not qualified to contest from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. It was alleged that S, the appellant's mother belonged to the Bhagatha community, a notified Scheduled Tribe, who married M, a person G belonging to a forward community, Patnaik Sisto Karnam, and in that wedlock was born the appellant and five other children who were brought up as Sisto Karnams and not as persons belonging to the Bhagatha community. Appellant submitted that she was the daughter of S through M but H MS ... .. S.H. DEVI v. S.G. SW AMY 849 pleaded that S had earlier married L who belonged to the Bhagatha A community which marriage was never terminated; that there was no marriage between S and M, though there was intimacy and co-habitation between them resulting in progeny, six in all including herself, all illegitimate; and that M had himself earlier m.arried his sister's daughter K, which marriage had also not been terminated, therefore, there was no possibility of M formally marrying S. The appellant further pleaded that B she had married A, her maternal uncle belonging to the Bhagatha Community and being the wife of a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, she was also entitled to be treated as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. The High Court held that M had married S, and six legitimate C children were born to them, that since a child took the caste of its father, the appellant had to be considered a Sista Karnam and not a member of the Bhagatha Community and further that the appellant could not claim the benefit of reservation to contest from a reserved constituency merely because of her marriage to a member of Scheduled Tribe when she herself belonged to a forward community and accordingly upheld the challenge D to the election of the appellant. Hence the appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: I. The High Court was right in declaring the election of the appellant to the concerned Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh E invalid. (861-8) 2.1. The finding of the High Court that M and S were married and six children including the appellant were born in that wedlock and that it was not possible to hold that there was only a concubinage and the six children including the appellant were born out of that relationship and F out of wedlock is unexceptionable. (855-E) 2.2. The conclusion that there was a valid marriage between M and S stands strengthened by the presumption available in law arising out of the long cohabitation of M and S. (855-H; 856-A) Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and Ors., AIR (1929) PC 135 .and Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari, AIR (1952) SC 231, relied on. 2.3. The presumption which may be drawn from long cohabitation G is rebuttable, and if there are circumstances which weaken or destroy that H 850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] I S.C.R. A presumption, the Court cannot ignore them. However on the evidence here, including the documentary evidenc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.