THAMMANNA versus K. VEERA REDDY & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 23-07-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
73 
THAMMANNA 
v .. 
K. VEERA REDDY & ORS. 
July 23, 1980 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
"Person aggrieved"-Defeated candidate made a proforma party respondent 
in an election petition-He neither files a written statement nor participates 
actively in proceedings before the High Court-Whether he is an aggrieved person 
entitled to appeal against the Order of the High Court-Status of an election 
petitio,TU!r-Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 98, 99, 108 to 110, 
.1l6A read with Section 87(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. 
One V. Krishna Reddy filed an election petition against Veera Reddy, 
respondent No. 1, a returned candidate in the elections held for the Andhra 
Pradesh Legislative Assembly in February, 1978 on the ground that the returned 
candidate was disqualified to be chosen to fill the post under Section 9A of 
the Representation of People Act, 1951 inasmuch as he has subsisting contracts 
with the Government of 
Andhra Pradesh. 
The appellant, l'hammar.!la was 
impleaded as original respondent No. 5 though he is not a necessary party. 
Be did not file any written statement. 
Neither did he lead any evidence nor 
did he cross-examirie the witnesses produced by respondent No. 1 and the 
election-petitioner. In fact, he did not even participate in the arguments before 
the High Court. 
In the appeal filed by Thammanna against the Judgment dated 
April 24, 1979 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing the election 
petition filed by Krishna Reddy, a preliminary objection was raised as to 
whether the appellant had the locus standi to maintain the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : . (1) The appellant cannot, by any reckoning, be said to be a 
'person aggrieved' by the decision of the High Court, dismissing the Election 
Pe~ition. [84q 
(2) Before a person is entitled to maintain an appeal under Section 116C 
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which is analogous to Sec-
tion 96(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, all the following three conditions must 
be satisfied : 
(I) that the subject-matter of the appeal is a conclusive determination by 
the High Court of the rights with regard to all or any of the matters 
in controversy, between the parties in the election petition. 
(2) that the person seeking to appeal has been a party in the election 
petition, and 
A 
B 
c 
D· 
E 
F 
G 
(3) that he is a "person aggrieved", that is a party who has been adversely 
affected by the determination. 
H 
In the present case, these conditions, particularly Nos. (1) and (3) have not 
been fulfilled. [79B-D] 
l 
.A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
'' 
G 
H 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 1 S.C.R .. 
(3) Just as the term "decree" in Section 96(1) of the Civil Procedure Code· 
means an adjudication which "conclusively determines all or ;my of the matter 
'in controversy in the suit", the expression "any final order"' as used in Sec-
tion l 16C of the Representation of the People Act contemplates a conclusive· 
determination of af! or any 
of the matters in controversy in the 
election 
petition between the parties. [78F-G] 
(4) The appellant was not a necessary party to be impleaded as there. was 
.no allegations or claims in the election petition which would attract section 82 
of the Representation of the People Act. 
In this case, the question of the 
Court joining him as a party respondent under Section 86(4} of the Act also 
did not arise, as he was impleaded before the High Court as respondent No. 5 
though it was not obligatory for the Election-Petitioner to ·do so. 
Even so, 
respondent No. 5 did not join the controversy. 
He neither joined issue with 
the contesting respondent No. 1 nor did he do anything tangible to show 
that he had made a: common cause with the Election-Petitioner against respon-
dent No. I. In fact, the only parties between whom the matters in controversy 
were ,at issue, were the Election-Petitioner and Respondent No. I. 
[79F-H] 
(5) Although the meaning of the expression "person aggrieved" may vary 
according to the context of the statute and the facts of the case, nevertheless, 
normally a 'person aggrieved' must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a 
man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully 
deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully 
affected his title to something. [80A-B] 
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar, [1975] 2 S.C.C. 703 and 
J. N. Desai v. Roshan Kumar A.LR. 1976

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