SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Mad) 281

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BAKTHAVATSALAM
Poosarilar Ekambaram Pillai - Appellant
Versus
Visalakshmi and Others - Respondents
C.R.P. No. 527 of 1989
Decided On : 29 March 1990

Appearing Advocates:R. Krishnamurthy, M/s. S. Kannan, R. Balasubramanian, V. Selvaraj, M/s. P.N. George Graham, S. Kanmani, Advocates.

Jurisdiction of High Court regarding interference with the decisions of Lower Courts and Tribunals.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 227 - Extent of powers of High Court in interfering with the decisions of lower Courts and Tribunals.

       

Judgment :-

This civil revision petition is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India relating to the election of the President of Omandur Panchayat in Lalgudi taluk.

2. The said election took place on 23-2-1986 and the revision petitioner herein and seven others contested the same. The first respondent herein was duly declared elected as President of Omandur Panchayat having secured 366 votes and the petitioner before me secured 294 votes.

3. The election of the first respondent in the said election was challenged by the petitioner herein by way of an election petition before the Election Tribunal (District Munsif, Thuraiyur), in O.P. No.7 of 1986. Against the order of the Election Tribunal dated 5-8-1987, the first respondent preferred a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No.3262/ 87 before this Court. In the said civil revision petition, Mohan, J. (as he then was) felt that one important question to be decided in this case is whether the first respondent herein is a citizen of India. By order dated 13-6-1988, Mohan, J. (as he then was) in the said C.R.P. No.326 of 1987, has held that having regard to the terms of Art. 5 of the Constitution of India, two aspects require to be decided (1) whether the petitioner therein was domiciled in India on 26th January, 1950 when the Constitution came into force and (2) whether one of her parents was born in the territory of India and to decide the abovementioned questions, the election petition was remitted back to the Election Tribunal by the learned Judge, to give a fresh disposal on those two aspects. After remand, by the impugned order herein, the Election Tribunal came to the conclusion that the first respondent herein is a citizen of India and as such it upheld her election as President of Omandur Panchayat dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein. Against that order, the petitioner has come up to this Court to set aside the election of the first respondent herein as Presidents of the Omandur village Panchayat, Lalgudi taluk.

4. The points which arise for consideration in this petition are;

(1) Whether the petitioner was domiciled in India on 26th January, 1950 when the Constitution of India came into force?

(2) Whether one of her parents was born in the territory of India?

5. Mr. R. Krishnamurthi, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contends that it is admitted that the first respondent herein was born in Malaysia in 1942, that on 26th January 1950 when the Constitution of India came into force, she was only a minor, that she being a minor, her domicile on the date of 26th January 1950, should be the domicile of her father in terms of Ss.7 and 14 of the Indian Succession Act. The learned counsel further contends that it is also admitted that regarding the birth of first respondent's her mother alone has deposed as a R.W.1, that the evidence of R.W.1 cannot be taken as evidence in the eye of law, that at best it can be taken as a hearsay and there is no other evidence to show the place of the first respondent's father. The learned senior counsel further contends that the Election Tribunal has not properly understood how to determine "domicile". The learned senior counsel refers to me various portions of evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 in extenso, to show that the first respondent herein is not a citizen of India. The learned senior counsel also refers to the decision in Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain,1955 AIR(SC) 36, 1955 (61) CRLJ 152, 1955 SCJ 4, 1955 (1) SCR 697, 57 PunjLR 153, in Govindan v. Bharathi, 1964 AIR(Kerala) 244, in Kedar Pandey v. Narain Bikram, 1966 AIR(SC) 160, 1965 (3) SCR 793, 45 ILR(Pat) 878 in U. P. State v. Shah Mohammed, 1969 AIR(SC) 1234, 1969 (1) SCC 771, 1969 (3) SCR 1006, in Abdul Samad v. State of West Bengal, 1972 CAR 395, 1973 (79) CRLJ 1, 1973 (1) SCC 451, 1973 UJ 380, 1973 SCC(Cri) 358, 1973 SCC(Cr) 358, 1973 AIR(SC) 505, in Set. Satya v. Teja Singh, 1974 CAR 355, 1975 (81) CrLJ 52, 1974 CrLR(SC) 673, 1975 (1) S



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top