SRI BARU RAM versus SHRIMATI PRASANNI & OTHERS

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 1403 · Decided: 30-09-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
\ 
• 
• 
• • 
S.C.R. • 
~UPREJ\j:E COURT REPORT.S 
1403 
alienation Coples to an end. (2) Where the right, title 
and interest of a judgm;nt-cfebtor are set up for sale 
as to what passes to the auction-purchaser is a ques-
tion of fact in each case dependent upon what was the 
estate put up for sale, what the Court intended to 
sell .and what the purchaser intended to b~ and 
did buy and what he paid for. (3) The 
words 
" right, title and interest" occurring in s. 155 of the 
Bombay Land Revenue Code have the same connota-
tion a,s they had in the corresponding words used in 
the Code of Civil Procedure existing at the time the 
Bombay Land Revenue Code was enacted. (4) In 
execution proceedings it is not necessary to implead the 
sons or to bring another suit if severance of status 
t.jtkes place pending the execution proceedings because 
the pious duty of the sons continues and consequently 
there is merely a difference in the mode of enjoyment 
of the property. (5) The liability of a father, who is a 
managing director and who draws a salary or ·a 
_remuneratiou, incurred as a result of negligence in the 
discharge of his duties is not an avyavaharilca debt ·as 
it cannot be termed as" repugnant to good morals". 
In th
0e result the appeal fails and is dismissed with 
<lo~ts. 
• 
SINHA J.-I agree to the order proposed. 
' 
Appeal dismissed. 
• 
SRI BARU RAM 
• 
v. 
SHRIMATI PRASANNI & OTHERS 
(VENKATARAMA AIYAR, GAJENDRAGADKAR 
and A. K. SARKAR JJ.). 
Ele~ion Petition-Cor'rupt practice-Procuring• assistance of 
Government servant by appointing as polling agent-Proof-Nomi-
nation paper, rejection of-Failure to produce copy of electoral roll 
-If rejection improper-Representation of th, PcoPie Act, r99 (43 
of r95r), ss. 2(c), 33, 36, 46 and r23(7). 
• 
The ll.rst respdl:tdent filed an election petition against tht!' 
.. 
• 
• 
• 
Jakati 
v. 
Borkar 
Kapur ]. 
• 
Sinha J. 
• 
• 
September 30. 
• • 
• 
. . 
• 
• 
1404 
• • 
• • • ' 
SUPREME COURT R~PORT~ • [1959] 
appellant on the grounds: (i) that he comr~i!Jed the corrupt. 
practice spedf1ecl ins. 123(7) or the'Representat10n of the People 
Sri /Jaru Ram 
Act, 1951 inasmuch as he h~cl obtained the assistance of one 
v. 
P, a member of the armed forces, who hacl acted as his polling 
Shrimati 
agent, and (ii) that the nomination of one .J hacl be•n improperly 
Pra<an>1i 6· Othm rejected by returning officer. 
The election tribunal held that 
• 
• 
• 
• 
.. 
• 
the com1pt practice was not provecl but that the nomination of 
J had been improperly n:jectcd and consequently it declared the 
election of the appellant to be voicl. 
On appc:al the High Court 
held that the nomination of J was not improperly rejected but 
that the corrupt practice alleged was established anti dismissed 
the appeal. 
The High Court found rhat I' had signed the form 
appointing him as the appellant's polling agent and had prcscnt-
ccl it before the presiding oflicc:r. that P was seen at the polling 
booth and that the scribe who wrote this form had also written 
the form by which the appellant hacl appointed another polling 
agent. 
From these circumstances the 1-ligh Court drc\Y the 
inference that the appellant hail appointed P as his pollin• 
agent and had in fact signed the form in token of such appoint-
ment. 
With respect to the rejection of the nomination of .J 
the High Court held that .J was a voter in a different consti-
tuency ancl that he hacl failed to produce a copy of the electoral 
roll \\•hen he presented the nomination paper, nor 
\\";:15 it pro-
cluccd at the time of the scrutiny or within the t,ime given by 
the returning officer and that consequently the nornination• 
was properly rejected. 
l/c'!cl, that to establish that the appellant was guilly of the 
corrupt practice charged it \\·as.not sufficient to shO\\. that P haQ 
actecl as his polling agent hut it must also be proYcrl that fhe 
appellant had appointee\ P as his polling agent. This fact the 
tir;t responden~ ha<l failed to pro\'c by any legal el'idcncc. The 
facts and circumstances found by the High Court did not inevit-
ably lead to the conclusion that the appellant had signed the 
form and hence such an inference could not ht! dra\\·n . 
Held, further, that the nomination of J was not improperly 
rejected.. 
\Vhcrc a candidate i~ au elector of a differr.pt consti· 
tucncy he ha.s to prove that fact in the n1anncr prescribed by 
s. J.'!(S) hy the production of a copy of the electoral roll of tllat 
consti

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