JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed under the provisions of section 38 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the KMC Act’) calling in question the judgment dated 16.04.2019 in Election Petition No. 4/2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru (for short, ‘the trial Court’). The trial Court by the impugned judgment dated 16.0 4.2090 has rejected the appellant’s Election Petition in No. 4/2018 calling in question the fourth respondent’s election to the Ward No. 36 – Yeragenahalli, Mysuru City Corporation in the elections held in the month of August 2019.

2. The elections to the Mysuru City Corporation were held in the month of August 2018. The Ward No. 36 – Yeragenahalli, Mysuru city Corporation was reserved for Backward Class B (Women). In terms of the notification issued by the Government of Karnataka in the year 1995, no person coming within the Backward Class B category would be entitled to the benefit of reservation in the seats and offices of Mayor/Deputy Mayor of City Corporations if:

(i) He/she or either of his/her parents/ Guardian /his or her spouse is a Class I or Class – II Officer in the service of the Government or holds an equivalent post in public sector undertaking or an employee under a private employer and draws a salary which is not less than of a class II officer,

(ii) He/she or either of his/her parents/guardian/his or her spouse is an Income Tax Assessee/Wealth tax Assessee,

(iii) He/she or either of his/her parents/guardians/his or her spouse is assessed to sales tax; and

(iv) He/she or either of his/her parents/guardians/his or her spouse both own more than 8 acres of rain fed or dry land equivalent.

Further, as per the Orders dated 14.07.2003 and 01.06.2018 issued by the Karnataka State Election Commission’s every candidate contesting municipal elections should file declaration by way of an affidavit furnishing certain details inter alia the details of the movables and immovable properties owned by the candidate and his/her spouse and dependents [The dependents would be like children, parents inlaws, siblings and others who depend on the income of the candidate.].

3. The appellant as well as the fourth and the fifth respondents filed their nominations with declarations as aforesaid to contest the elections from this seat asserting that they would be entitled to contest the election as Backward ClassB persons. The appellant contested as a candidate from the Indian National Party and the fourth respondent contested as a candidate from the Janata Dal (Secular) Party, and the fifth respondent contested as a candidate from the Bharatiya Janata Party. The results of the elections were announced on 03.09.2018. The fourth respondent secured the highest number of votes. The appellant secured the second highest number of votes. The fourth respondent was declared as the successful candidate and the certificate of election in the prescribed Form No. 24 was also issued on the same day.

4. The appellant has filed the election petition impugning the fourth respondent’s election asserting that the appellant, after the announcement of the results, has obtained certified copies of the nomination, the declaration (the affidavit) and the enclosures filed by the fourth respondent. The appellant has also asserted that the fourth respondent in such declaration has inter alia declared that (i) her husband’s name as ‘Nanje Gowda’, (ii) neither she nor her two children are Income Tax Assessees and they do not hold any PAN Card, and (iii) the fourth respondent has further declared that neither she nor her husband either own or possess any immovable property. However, the fourth respondent’s husband owns different immovable properties in Kyathamaranhalli Village, Hanchaya Village and Stahagahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The appellant has furnished the details of the lands/site and the details of the motor vehicle that are allegedly owned by the fourth respondent’s husb