The interpretation of the term 'election' in the context of the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, and the rules for the conduct of elections was central to the court's decision.

Curgenven, J.

1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this civil miscellaneous appeal are briefly these. There was a vacant seat upon the Tindivanam Taluk Board, and three candidates offered themselves for the election, the plaintiff, defendant 2, and one Narayanaswami Pillai. On the day fixed for the scrutiny of nomination papers, the President of the Taluk Board (defendant 1), it is said upon an objection made to them by defendant 2, rejected the nomination paper of the plaintiff on the ground that he was an Honorary Magistrate and so disqualified for the election under Section 55 (2)(iv), Madras Local Boards Act, 1920. Later, another of the candidates, Narayanaswami Pillai, withdrew. There was thus left only defendant 2, as a candidate for the seat, and in accordance with the terms of Rule 7 (1) of the rules for the conduct of elections, framed under the Act, he was deemed to be elected. The plaintiff, after endeavouring to obtain redress in some other ways, then filed a suit in the District Munsifs Court against the President and the successful candidate for a declaration that he was a duly nominated candidate for setting aside the election of defendant 2, and for certain injunctions, against defendant 1. The District Munsif framed and considered the preliminary issue whether he had jurisdiction to try this suit, and answering the question in the negative, dismissed it. On appeal to the Sub-Court this finding was reversed, and the suit remanded for disposal upon the remaining issues. It is against this order of remand made by the learned Subordinate Judge that this civil miscellaneous appeal is presented, and the question we have to consider is this, one of jurisdiction.

2. Rule 1 of the rules for the conduct of enquiries and the decision of the disputes relating to elections runs as follows:

Save-as provided in Section 57, Madras Local Boards Act 1920, no election held under the Madras Local Boards Act whether of a member or President of a District Board, a Taluk Board, or a Union Board or a Vice-President of a District Board, or Taluk Board, shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with these rules, to the District or Subordinate Judge having jurisdiction, by any candidate or elector against the candidate (hereinafter called the returned candidate) who has been declared by the President of a Local Board to have been duly elected.

3. Now there has been some discussion before us as to the exact meaning of this rule. The appellant contends that it provides for an election petition only against a candidate who has been declared by the President to be duly elected, and that in all other cases the civil Court has jurisdiction. The respondent urges that while it may be true that an election petition is restricted in the manner stated, yet the rule bars the civil Court in the case of all disputes relating to elections. It appears to me that the rule quite clearly bears the latter meaning. What it says is that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition, and that petition must be presented against the candidate declared by the President to have been elected. The rule has given rise to difficulty because Rule 7 (1) of the electoral rules, which applies to a case such as the present, where the member of the candidate equals the number of vacancies, provided (before its recent amendment) that all such candidates shall be deemed to be duly elected ". It was held by Jackson J. in Srinivasachariar v. Venkatarama Aiyar A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 376, that a candidate who had been " deemed to be duly elected " had not been " declared by the president to be duly elected, " with the result that, under the terms of Rule 1 of Disputes rules an election petition would not lie in such a case. Had not the matter been set right by amendment of the rules, therefore, there would have been a class of disputes not amenable to an election enquiry and, if the view I take of the meaning