1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
ELECTION PETITION No.4/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI N MUNIANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O H. NARAYANAPPA,
WARD NO. 8, MUTYALAPETE,
MULBAGAL TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
… PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI, Sr.COUNSEL FOR
SRI HEMANTH KUMAR D
SRI MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G., ADVs.)
AND:
1. G MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O LATE GOVINDU,
MARAHERUKOTHURU VILLAGE,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
2. G. VENKATARAVANA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O LATE GOVINDU,
MARAHERUKOTHURU VILLAGE,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
3. AMARESH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O MUNISWAMY @ SAKRAPPA,
KEELAGANI VILLAGE,
AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
2
4. M.N. AMBARISH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANAPPA
MALEKUPPA VILLAGE,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
5. Y. SRINIVASAN PATAPAT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O A.V. YALLAPPA,
NO.32, BR AMBEDKAR ROAD,
ATTIBELE,
ANEKAL TALUK-562 125
6. P CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE PILLAPPA,
ASALI ATTHIKUNTE VILLAGE,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
7. JAGADISH C.K
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY RAJ,
NO. 3264/5, MUTHYALPET,
MULBAGAL TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
8. DODDACHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
NAGAVARA VILLAGE,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
9. C. RAMAKRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA,
KURAGAL VILLAGE AND POST,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
10. RANJIT KUMAR T
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O M. THIMMAIAH,
NETHAJINAGARA
MULBAGAL TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
3
11. H.A. LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O AVALAPPA,
NO.4081, 1ST CROSS
M.N. HALLI ROAD,
MULBAGAL TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
12. V. ADINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O. VENKATARAMAPPA,
PEDDAREDDYPALLI VILLAGE,
BAGEPALLI TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-561 207
13. G. ALANGUR RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O GANESHAPPA,
SONNAVADI VILLAGE,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
14. CHALAPATHI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O VENKATESHAPPA
NAGAMANGALA VILLAGE,
MULBAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
15. NAGARAJ V
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O VIDYARANYA,
MADDERI VILLAGE,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
16. T.V. BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O VENKATANABOVI
TIMMANAYAKANAHALLI,
MALLANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
17. V. MARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O VENKATARASHAMBOVI
OLAGERANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
4
18. D. VENKATARAVANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O. DODDAKAMANNA
KESARAMANAGALA VILLAGE,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
19. T.M. SHVIANNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
THORADI VILLAGE,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
20. N. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
GUMMAKAL VILLAGE,
G.MARANDAHALLI POST,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
21. V. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O VENKATARAMAPPA
NETHAJI NAGAR,
MULBAGAL TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, Sr. COUNSEL FOR
SRI K RAGHUPATHY
SRI R HEMANTHRAJ A/W
SRI C SHASHIKANTHA, ADVs. FOR R1
SRI N.S. SHESHADRI, ADV. FOR R2
SRI A S MAHESH, ADV. FOR R3
SRI PRAVEEN BY RJS ADV’s FOR R4, 6-11, 13-15 19
SRI V S BIJU, ADV. FOR R17
SRI G.KRISHNAMURTHY FOR
SRI BIMBADHAR M GOWDAR, ADV. FOR R12
V/O DATED 22/01/2018)
THIS ELECTION PETITION PRESENTED U/S 81 OF THE
REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE’S ACT, 1951 R/W RULE 4 OF
THE ELECTION PROCEDURE RULES, KARNATAKA 1967 BY ONE
SRI MUNIANJAPPA N, PETITIONER CHALLENGING THE
ELECTION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1: SRI G MANJUNATHA TO
THE KARNATAKA LEGISLATURE FROM NO.145, MULBAGAL(SC)
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY, GENERAL ELECTIONS HELD IN
5
THE YEAR 2013, PRAYING TO A) DECLARE THAT ON THE DATE
OF ELECTION ON 05.05.2013 AND DECLARATION OF THE
RESULT ON 08.05.2013 THAT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 WAS
NOT QUALIFIED TO BE CHOOSEN TO FILL THE SEAT
RESERVED FOR THE SCHEDULE CASTE 145 MULBAGAL
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND UNDER SECTION
100(1)(A)(D)(IV) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT
AND ETC.
THIS ELECTION PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 13.04.2018, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in this petition filed under Section
81 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (‘R.P.Act’
for short) is before this Court seeking to declare that on
the date of election on 05.05.2013 and on the date of
declaration of the result on 08.05.2013, respondent
No.1 was not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat
reserved for the Scheduled Caste in the Karnataka
Assembly. The seat in question is No.145 Mulbagal
reserved constituency. The petitioner is also seeking to
declare the result of the said election, so far as it
concerns respondent No.1 is materially affected by the
improper acceptance of the nomination. A declaration
is sought that the result of the respondent No.1 as
elected to the No.145 Mulbagal (SC) Assembly
constituency as null and void. A declaration that the
6
result of the election is materially affected by the
improper reception and counting of 73146 votes in
favour of respondent No.1 as void and accordingly treat
the said votes as wasted and thrown away votes is
sought. Consequently it is further sought that the
petitioner be declared as duly elected to the No.145
Mulbagal (SC) Assembly Constituency and to impose
penalty on the respondents No.1 and 2 under Section
125A of the R.P.Act.
2. The petitioner and the respondents No.1 to 21
had filed the nomination seeking their election to the
Karnataka Legislative Assembly from No.145 Mulbagal
Constituency. The said constituency is reserved for
persons belonging to Scheduled Caste. The respondents
No.1 and 2 as also their uncle one Sri Gangireddy had
filed their nominations. The nominations filed by the
respondents No.1 and 2 were accepted by the Returning
Officer on 18.04.2013. In the result of the election
declared on 08.05.2013 the petitioner had secured
39142 votes while respondent No.1 had secured 73146
votes and accordingly respondent No.1 was declared
7
elected. At that stage, since the writ petition was
pending assailing the acceptance of the nomination, the
result declared was made subject to result of
W.P.No.20025-26/2013, which has been disposed of
leaving open all contentions to be considered in this
petition.
3. The petitioner is challenging the acceptance of
the nomination and the election of respondent No.1 by
contending that the respondent No.1 does not belong to
Scheduled Caste (‘SC’ for short) since according to the
petitioner the respondent No.1 does not belong to Beda
(Budaga) Jangama community notified as SC under the
presidential order at Item No.4 of IV in Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Lists (Modification) Order,
1956. The case of the petitioner is that the said Beda
(Budaga) Jangama Caste is stated to be prevalent in
Gulbarga, Bidar and Raichur District but not in Kolar
District. In order to contend so, the petitioner has also
averred that while admitting respondent No.1 into
school by the parents, it has been stated that he
belongs to ‘Byragi’ caste as recorded in the admission
8
records which is also indicated in the Transfer
Certificate when he was studying SSLC. It is contended
that in some sale deeds relating to his family members
and relatives they have been described as belonging to
‘Jangala’ caste. It is contended that the said ‘Byragi’ or
‘Jangala’ caste is not the same as Beda (Budaga)
Jangama nor are they SC. The ‘Byragi’ caste is notified
as Backward Caste Category-I in the Government Order
dated 30.03.2002 and as such it cannot be considered
as Scheduled Caste. The respondent No.1 at an earlier
point on 04.04.2008 had filed an application seeking
issue of caste certificate but the same was rejected by
the Tahsildar-Mulbagal stating that respondent No.1
belongs to ‘Byragi’ Caste.
4. The petitioner contends that the caste
certificate dated 03.04.2012 relied upon by the
respondent is concocted, manipulated, bogus and the
computer generated print out is not genuine certificate.
The discrepancies as appearing on the face of it is
referred to contend that the said manipulations itself
would indicate that it is bogus. The said forged
9
computer print out caste certificate is relied upon to file
the nomination as a candidate belonging to ‘Budaga’
Jangama (SC). It is contended that the respondent No.1
belongs to ‘Byragi’ community which is entered in the
school records. ‘Byragi’ is not a Scheduled Caste but is
Backward Category I.
5. The further contention is that the respondent
No.1 hails from K.R.Puram, Bengaluru and has a house
in Ramamurthynagar but is presently claiming to
belong to Maraheru Kottur village. There are no
persons belonging to ‘Budaga’ Jangama in Kolar
District. The custom, tradition and religious practices
of ‘Byragi’ and ‘Jangala’ community is entirely different
from that of Budaga (Beda) Jangama caste.
6. The petitioner contends that he brought the
same to the notice of the Returning Officer during the
scrutiny of nomination papers on 18.04.2013 but, the
same was disregarded. In the year 2008 also, the
respondent No.1 had made an application for issuing
caste certificate as ‘Budaga’ Jangama. The Tahsildar
10
Mulbagal Taluk issued the endorsement dated
04.04.2008 and rejected the application of the
respondent No.1. The District Caste Verification
committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar
District by its order dated 12.04.2008 rejected the claim
of the respondent No.1 and his uncle Sri Gangireddy
holding that they belong to ‘Byragi’ community. The
respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.5932/2008 challenging
the endorsement dated 04.04.2008 without disclosing
about the order passed by the District Caste Verification
Committee and in that light managed to obtain an order
dated 12.09.2008 reserving liberty to prefer an appeal
under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Class (Reservation of Appointment) Act, 1990
(‘the Act’ for short). The petitioner however did not file
any other proceeding.
7. When this was the position, one Sri Amarnath
had applied seeking information about the caste of
respondent No.1 and an endorsement dated 29.09.2011
was issued to him by the Tahsildar stating that no caste
certificate was issued to Respondent No.1.
11
Subsequently on the complaint lodged by one Sri
Venkatachalapathy the Tahsildar after conducting
detailed enquiry has arrived at the conclusion that no
such caste certificate was issued from his office and the
same is a created document. Accordingly, an
endorsement dated 15.09.2012 was issued directing
respondent No.1 not to make use of the caste certificate.
Despite the same, the respondent No.1 has been using
the concocted caste certificate. One Muralidhar had
brought this fact to the notice of the Tahsildar and the
Tahsildar issued an endorsement dated 14.03.2013 to
Sri Muralidhar stating that the computer generated
caste certificate dated 26.11.2010 and 03.04.2012 being
relied by Respondent No.1 were concocted.
8. It is contended that on 13.04.2013 an FIR has
been registered by the Mulbagal Police in Crime No.
149/2013 based on the complaint of the Tahsildar-
Mulbagal Taluk against one Sri.Srinivas M who was
working as a clerk in the office of the Tahsildar, for
creating false certificate. The said Sri.Srinivas was
accordingly suspended. The respondent No.1 however
12
managed to stall the proceedings being initiated against
him also by filing W.P.No.13679/2013 and
W.P.No.17122/2013. The petitioner further referring to
the manner in which the respondent No.1 has been
making use of the false caste certificate dated
03.04.2012 and in that background the nomination
being accepted, has sought for the prayer in this
petition as noticed.
9. The respondent No.1 has filed a detailed
written statement disputing the case put forth by the
petitioner. He contends that he had filed his
nomination to both No.145 Mulbagal constituency and
No.146 KGF constituency both of which are reserved for
SC and his nominations were accepted. However, he
withdrew the nomination from KGF constituency and
contested in Mulbagal constituency after it was
accepted. The respondent No.1 contends that he
submitted an application dated 04.04.2008 and the
Tahsildar on receipt issued an endorsement rejecting
the application. The Caste Verification Committee
through the order dated 12.04.2008 had also rejected
13
the claim. He however contends that the rejection thus
made was for non-production of sufficient documents to
substantiate his claim and in that view though the
W.P.No.5932/2008 was disposed of reserving liberty to
file an appeal, he did not choose to file the appeal as at
that point he did not possess sufficient material to
substantiate his claim. Instead of preferring an appeal
he contends that a fresh application was made before
the Tahsildar for issue of Budaga Jangama caste
certificate by enclosing the necessary documents. The
same was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner who
after receipt of the letter dated 01.06.2010 from the
Tahsildar directed the Tahsildar to take action as per
law and also as per the Circular dated 16.03.2008.
Another Circular dated 17.07.2010 was also issued by
the Deputy Commissioner relating to issue of caste
certificate.
10. The respondent No.1 contends that a caste
certificate was issued on 26.11.2010, but strangely the
Tahsildar had taken a stand that he never issued the
caste certificate. The respondent No.1 alleges that the
14
Tahsildar who was hand in glove with the political
opponents had removed the entire file relating to issue
of caste certificate dated 26.11.2010. In that view, he
once again made an application dated 02.01.2012
before the Deputy Commissioner to grant the caste
certificate by producing supporting documents. The
Deputy Commissioner after receipt of the application
forwarded the same to the Tahsildar vide letter dated
20.01.2012. The Tahsildar had thereafter submitted
the detailed report dated 02.03.2012 recommending for
issue of caste certificate. One more report dated
19.03.2012 was made recommending issue of caste
certificate. The Deputy Commissioner after receipt of
the recommendation has passed an order dated
24.03.2012 directing the Tahsildar to issue caste
certificate in accordance with law.
11. It is further contended by respondent No.1
that the Tahsildar after receipt of the order dated
24.03.2012 had passed an order dated 27.03.2012
classifying the petitioner as Budaga Jangama. It is
contended that the Tahsildar had also made an entry in
15
the register maintained in his office and a caste
certificate dated 03.04.2013 came to be issued in favour
of respondent No.1. Hence it is contended that the
allegation of the petitioner that it is a fabricated
document is unfounded.
12. It is also contended that immediately after he
became aware of the entries in the column of the school
records showing as ‘Byragi’ community, he made
representation to the Head Master and also the Block
Education Officer to rectify the caste as Budaga
Jangama. Since the representation was turned down,
the respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.107/2012
before the Civil Court for rectification of the entries. In
the above background the respondent No.1 seeks to
justify the caste certificate obtained by him and further
seeks to contend that he belongs to Budaga Jangama
caste and in that light contends that the acceptance of
his nomination from the SC reserved constituency is in
accordance with law. He therefore seeks for dismissal of
the petition.
16
13. The respondent No.2 who is the brother of
respondent No.1 has filed a separate written statement
denying the contents in the petition and seeking to
justify that they belong to Budaga Jangama caste.
14. In the light of the rival pleadings of the
parties, the following issues are framed for
consideration:
ISSUES
”
1. Does the petitioner prove that the first
respondent belongs to ‘Byragi’ Caste?
2. Does the petitioner prove that the caste
certificate dated 03.04.2012 produced along
with the nomination form, by the first respondent
as belonging to Budaga Jangama caste is
concocted and obtained by playing fraud?
3. Does the petitioner therefore prove that the first
respondent was not qualified to contest from
No.145 Mulbagal Assembly Constituency
reserved for Schedule Caste?
4. Does the first respondent prove that he belongs
to Budaga Jangama (SC) and was entitled to
contest from reserved constituency?
5. Does the petitioner prove that the acceptance of
the nomination of the first and second
17respondents for the reserved constituency is
illegal and has materially affected the election
result?
6. Does the petitioner prove that the voters of the
constituency had knowledge that the first
respondent does not belong to schedule caste
and the votes cast in his favour are void?
7. If so, does the petitioner prove that the votes
secured by the first respondent are to be treated
as ‘thrown away’ and the petitioner is entitled to
be declared elected?
8. Does the petitioner establish that this Court
should penalize the first and second respondent
as per Sec.125-A of the Representation of People
Act?
9. What order? ”
15. In order to discharge the burden cast on the
parties by the above noted issues, the petitioner
examined himself as PW.1 and the witnesses as PW.2 to
PW.11 and got marked the documents at Exhs.P1 to
P99. The respondent No.1 on the other hand got
himself examined as RW.2 and the witnesses as RW.2 to
RW.9 and got marked the documents at Exhs. R1 to
18
R70. None of the other respondents including the
respondent No.2 have chosen to tender evidence.
16. In the background of the averments made,
evidence tendered and the materials relied, I have
extensively heard Smt.Pramila Nesargi, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Haranahalli,
learned senior counsel for respondent No.1, Sri
G.Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel for
respondent No.12 and Sri N.S.Seshadri, learned counsel
for respondent No.2.
17. Taking note of the nature of the contentions
as put forth and keeping in view that the issue herein
relates to the social status as claimed by respondent
No.1 and that he has taken advantage of the same, the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on
the decision in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and
another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal
Development and others (AIR 1995 SC 94) wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines
which is required to be followed in considering the caste
19
status. The application for grant of social status
certificate is to be made to the Revenue Sub-divisional
Office and the Deputy Collector or Deputy
Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by
such Officer rather than the Officer, Taluk or Mandal
level. The parent, guardian or the candidate shall file
an affidavit duly attested with particulars of castes,
sub-castes etc. The State Government should
constitute a committee and each Directorate should
constitute a Vigilance Cell consisting of Senior Deputy
Superintendent of Police and such number of Police
Inspectors to investigate into the social status of the
claims. The method to be followed is also indicated.
The Inspector should go to the local place of residence
and original place from which the candidate hails and
usually resides or in case of migration to the town or
city the place from which he originally hailed from. The
Vigilance Officer should personally verify and collect all
the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or
the parents or guardian as the case may be. He should
also examine the school records, birth registration if
20
any. He should examine the parent, guardian or the
candidate in relation to their caste etc or such other
persons who have knowledge of the social status of the
candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate
together with all particulars as envisaged in the
proforma. The peculiar enthropological and ethnological
trades, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc should
be taken note. In that light the stringent guidelines laid
down to recognize the caste status is emphasized and
the manner it is to be established.
18. The case of Director of Tribal Welfare,
Government of A.P. vs. Laveti Giri and another
[(1995)4 SCC 32] wherein it is held that the burden of
proving the genuineness of the caste certificate and the
social status is always on the person who profess it to
seek constitutional socio-economic advantages is relied
on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. It is
also held therein that it is no part of the duty of the
State to disprove or otherwise. The very procedure as
contemplated in the case of Madhuri Patil has been
21
reiterated therein for the purpose of consideration of the
social status. In that background learned Senior
Counsel for petitioner also relied on the case in Punit
Rai vs. Dinesh Chaudhary [(2003)8 SCC 204] wherein
it is held that when the initial burden is discharged by
the election petitioner, the onus would shift on the
respondent to prove his case which is within his special
knowledge. If the respondent fails to prove the special
knowledge by producing the best evidence, an adverse
inference could be drawn. Hence it is contended that
heavy burden rests on the respondent No.1 to prove the
social status of the caste he professes.
19. The learned senior counsel for respondent
No.12 has also relied on the very decision in the case of
Punit Rai -vs- Dinesh Chaudhary (AIR 2003 SC
4355)- with emphasis to the portion wherein an earlier
decision is referred and held that the party upon whom
the burden lies to prove the fact, but fails to discharge
the onus, it is not open for him to bank upon the plea of
non examination of witness by the other party. Such
party cannot be permitted to derive strength from the
22
weakness of the case of the other party. In the facts
therein it was found that the onus to prove the facts
within the special knowledge of the respondent No.1
therein had not been discharged. Accordingly appeal
was allowed and the election was set aside. He has also
relied on the case of Addagada Raghavamma and
another -vs- Addagada Chenchamma and another
(AIR 1964 SC 136) – wherein it is enunciated that there
is an essential distinction between burden of proof and
onus of proof. Burden of proof lies upon the person who
has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of
proof shifts. In the case referred, it was held that the
burden of proof lay upon the plaintiff to establish the
factum of adoption and that of partition. The said
circumstances do not alter the incidence of the burden
of proof. Such considerations, having regard to the
circumstance of a particular case may shift the onus of
proof. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process
of evaluation of evidence. It is therefore contended that
the factum of his caste and thereby the social status
which he seeks to take advantage is to be always
23
established by the respondent No.1 and the burden will
always remain on him to prove the same.
20. The learned senior counsel for the respondent
No.1 on the other hand has relied on the case of
Shiv Charan Singh -vs- Chandra Bhan Singh and
others [(1988) 2 SCC 12] – wherein it is held that
though the Act has been amended several times the
Parliament has not altered the burden of proof placed
on the election petitioner under Section 100 (1) (d) of the
Act. It is not possible to avoid the election of the
returned candidate on speculations or conjectures
relating to the manner in which the wasted votes would
have been distributed. In the absence of positive proof of
material effect on the result of the election of the
returned candidate, the election must be allowed to
stand and the Court should not interfere with the
election on speculation and conjectures. The case of
R.P.Moidutty -vs- P.T.Kunju Mohammad and another
[(2000) 1 SCC 481] – wherein it is held that it is basic to
the law of elections and election petition that in a
democracy, the mandate of the people expressed at the
24
hustings must prevail and be respected by the Courts
and the election of a successful candidate is not to be
set aside lightly. A heavy burden lies on the election
petitioner to prove corrupt practice. The onus of proof is
not discharged merely on preponderance of
probabilities. The standard of proof required is akin to
that of proving a criminal or a quasi criminal charge.
Clear cut evidence, wholly credible and reliable is
needed to prove beyond doubt the charge of corrupt
practice. In that light the learned senior counsel
contends that the burden is heavy on the petitioner.
21. From a perusal of the above decisions, there
can be no dispute with regard to the position that the
Election petitioner having approached this Court
putting forth certain contentions, the initial burden
would be on him to discharge. Once the initial burden
is discharged, the onus would shift on the respondents.
While taking note of these facts what is also to be kept
in view is that in an election petition wherein the
corrupt practice is alleged, there cannot be vague
charges and the burden is extremely heavy on the
25
petitioner. In the instant case, the contention however
put forth on behalf of the petitioner is that as per the
very school records of the respondent No.1, his caste is
shown as ‘Byragi’ as he belongs to that caste and when
that has stood the test of time the respondent No.1
cannot claim a social status to take advantage of the
same. The respondent on the other hand has
contended that such entry in the school records is
erroneously made and in that view he asserts that he
belongs to Budaga Jangama and claims a social status
which requires strong evidence. Hence if the petitioner
brings home the evidence to show that the school
records indicate that the respondent No.1 is shown as
‘Byragi’ at an undisputed point in time, the pendulum
would swing towards respondent No.1 to conclusively
prove that he actually is of Budaga Jangama caste and
such entry in the school record is contrary to the factual
position.
22. In the light of the said contentions, the issue
No.1 casts the initial burden in that manner for the
petitioner to prove that the first respondent belongs to
26
‘Byragi’ caste as is depicted in the school records as
contended. In view of the assertion of respondent No.1
about his caste to claim the social status, issue No.4
casts the burden on the respondent No.1. Apart from
the issues Nos.1 and 4 therefore being intertwined, the
other issues would become consequential even though
they cast the burden relating to the caste certificate as
claimed and in that light the evidence as tendered is
required to be taken note. If the initial burden is
discharged by the petitioner, the burden would be heavy
on respondent No.1 as he claims benefit to a social
status and take advantage of the same.
23. In the above noted circumstance, the
petitioner having examined himself as PW-1 has stated
with regard to the school records pertaining to the
respondent No.1 and the caste of the respondent No.1
being shown as ‘Byragi’. The documents at Ex.P-4 and
P-5, the admission register and Transfer Certificate are
marked. The documents at Exhs.P-8, P-9 and 9(a) are
also marked. Sri K.M.Venkateshappa, Vice Principal,
Nehru Kennedy High School, Byrapur is examined as
27
PW.5. The Admission Register for the period 1986 to
1992 is marked as Ex.P92. The Register for the period
1990-1995 is marked as Exh.P-93. The entry contained
at Sl.No.4 relating to respondent No.1 for the academic
year 1992-93 is marked as Ex.93(a). As per the entry,
his caste is shown as ‘Byragi’. The name of respondent
No.2 is shown at Sl.No.3 for the academic year 1989-90
and is marked as Ex.P.92(a). His caste is also indicated
as ‘Byragi’ and that he joined the school for the VIII Std
during the said years. The Transfer Certificate marked
as Ex.P5 is also accepted by PW-5, as having been
issued from the said Nehru Kennedy High School. The
document at Ex.P8 is also accepted as the list issued
from the said school. It is elicited in the cross
examination that the entry is not made at the instance
of the parents, but was based on the information
available in the Transfer Certificate of the VII Std. It is
further elicited from the said witness about the customs
and the dress being worn by them and the persons
belonging to Budaga Jangama caste follow the same
28
and that persons belonging to Budaga Jangama caste
have also secured admission in the school.
24. Sri Devaraju N, the Block Education Officer
was examined as PW.7. He has also referred to the
documents marked as Ex.P8 being the list of students
studied from Kottur village during the period 1977 to
31.03.1993. The name of the first respondent is
referred at Sl.No.15 and that of respondent No.2 at Sl.
No.6. The document at Ex.P4, the admission extract
relating to the first respondent is also referred and the
caste shown as ‘Byragi’ is stated by the witness. The
admission register at Ex.P35 relating to Nehru Kennedy
School indicating the seal of the Government Kannada
Lower Primary School, Kottur is referred. The Transfer
Certificate at Ex.P94 is shown to the witness and
marked after overruling the objections. The Transfer
Certificate is dated 22.07.1991 and the Caste is
indicated as ‘Byragi’. The said witness has been
subjected to cross examination and he has stated that
he is not in a position to say as to on what basis the
entries have been made in Ex.P8 and he cannot say who
29
has provided the details for making the entry in the
document at Ex.P8. It has been suggested to him that
the Ex.P8 is not genuine as the original is not available
to which he has stated that it could be true. He has
also stated that he cannot say the basis on which the
caste as ‘Byragi’ has been entered either in Ex.P4 or in
Ex.P35.
25. The evidence as tendered through PW.1,
PW.5, PW.7 and the documents marked and referred to
above would indicate that at an undisputed point of
time the school records indicated the name of
respondents No.1 and 2 and their caste was depicted as
‘Byragi’. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
has relied on the decision in the case of Desh Raj vs
Bodh Raj [(2008)2 SCC 186] wherein it is held that
entries in the admission register made a long period
earlier has evidentiary value and documents more than
30 years old attracted presumption as to its validity. In
so far as the caste certificate issued in the said case by
the Executive Magistrate is concerned, it was observed
that such caste certificates are not given after thorough
30
investigation. It is also held that, when the primary
evidence regarding caste is led by the appellant and the
attempt of the respondent is to claim to be a Schedule
Caste, the caste certificate issued by the Executive
Magistrate cannot be taken as evidence to prove the
caste of the respondent.
26. Reliance is also placed by the learned senior
counsel for petitioner, on the decision in the case of
Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah vs. Ramachandra
(E.P.No.3/1991, DD 27.10.1994) – wherein it is held
that even assuming that the certificate is issued by a
competent officer, the Returning Officer was not
precluded from not relying upon it if there was other
material to indicate that the petitioner did not belong to
Beda Jangam . In that case the extract of the admission
register and the affidavit of the sister which indicated
that the petitioner belonged to Jangam Lingayath and
not Beda Jangam caste was available. In that view it
was held that the Returning Officer need not have relied
on the caste certificate. The contention raised therein
that the nomination paper was accepted in the earlier
31
election was noted and it was held that when there were
other documents, the mere fact that the nomination had
been accepted in the earlier election cannot be a ground
to hold that he belong to Beda Jangama caste. The
decision reported in (1996) 4 SCC 431 is relied to show
that the judgment in E.P.No. 3/1991 was upheld by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and to contend that the entries
in the school records would have evidentiary value and
moreso when such entries are more than 30 years old,
the presumption would arise in law and as such the
caste as indicated therein should be conclusively
accepted by this Court.
27. The learned senior counsel for respondent
No.1 on the other hand would refer to the decisions in
the case of M.Chandra -vs- M.Thangamuthu and
another – [(2010) 9 SCC 712] wherein it is held that
the reliance placed on the birth records, entries in the
telephone application and voters list cannot be the sole
ground for proving that the appellant therein was
professing Christianity. It is observed in the said case
that such records could have been made by people other
32
than the person concerned. It was further observed
that the entry in the birth register in that case was not
made by the parents but by the Village head nurse. It is
also held therein that in an election petition the facts
presented must be clear and when people have elected
their representative it cannot be taken lightly. The
person who files the election petition should have a
definite case to prove that the election was illegal.
Therefore the burden of proof shall lie on the petitioner.
Even if the allegation is not of corrupt practice, the
same will not be lesser in seriousness. Hence the
burden of proof is on the election petitioner to prove the
charges beyond reasonable doubt.
28. The learned senior counsel for the respondent
No.1 has further relied on the case of Birad Mal
Singhvi -vs- Anand Purohit [1988 (Supp) SCC 604], –
wherein it is stated that if the entry regarding date of
birth in a school register is made on the information
given by the parents or someone having special
knowledge of the fact, the same would have probative
value but if it is given by a stranger such entry will have
33
no evidentiary value. The case of Sushil Kumar -vs-
Rakesh Kumar [(2003) 8 SCC 673], – wherein, with
reference to Sec.35 of the Evidence Act it is held that a
register maintained in terms of a statute or by a
statutory authority in regular course of business alone
would be a relevant fact and only if such vital evidence
is produced, it would clinch the issue and the case of
Jabar Singh -vs- Dinesh and another, [(2010) 3 SCC
757], – wherein, in the facts arising in that case it was
held that the entry of date of birth in the admission
form, the school records and transfer certificates did not
satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 35 of the
Evidence Act as the entry was not in the public or
official register, are relied upon.
29. That apart reliance is placed in the case of
Babloo Pasi -vs- State of Jharkhand and another
[(2008) 13 SCC 133], – wherein it is held that to render
a document admissible under Section 35, three
conditions have to be satisfied, namely; (i) entry that is
relied on must be one in a public or other official book,
register or record; (ii) it must be a entry stating a fact in
34
issue or a relevant fact, and (iii) it must be made by a
public servant in discharge of his official duties, or in
performance of his duty especially enjoined by law. An
entry relating to date of birth made in the school
register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of
the Act but the entry regarding the age of a person in a
school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove
the age of the person in the absence of the material on
which the age was recorded. The said decision is cited
to contend that the reliance in the school registers can
be placed only if such entry is made based on the
details furnished by the parents and the details as
entered on the information furnished by strangers
cannot be the basis. It is also contended that the
original registers are not produced and the same not
being public documents cannot be relied upon.
30. Having taken note of the decisions cited by
either side, the fact situation herein is that the school
records produced would indicate that they are of the
periods from 1977 onwards and the fact that the
respondents No.1 and 2 had studied in both the schools
35
referred is not in dispute. Though in the cross
examination of PW.5 it is attempted to extract that the
entry of the caste is not made based on the information
furnished by the parents, the witness has stated that
the entry is based on the Transfer Certificate issued
from the earlier school. In that regard, when PW.7 has
referred to that aspect there is no detailed cross
examination on that aspect.
31. Be that as it may, when the entries are
contained therein and even if certain suggestions were
put to PW.5 and PW.7 in an attempt to indicate that
they have no knowledge as to on what basis the caste of
respondent No.1 and 2 has been entered and obviously
when the admission of respondents No.1 and 2 was to
the primary school when the first admission was made
to the Government School and was for the VII Std in the
Nehru Kennedy school, the respondent No.1 would not
be aware of the details and it should be their elders
unless the contrary is proved. Therefore, if the
respondent No.1 was to contend that the entry
contained in such a document maintained at an
36
undisputed point in time was made without basis and is
an error, the respondent No.1 ought to have examined
such reliable witness to speak about the fact as to who
had secured and admitted the respondents No.1 and 2
to school and what was the nature of the information
that was furnished. Without doing so, a dispute cannot
be raised all of a sudden, out of the blue when it
becomes inconvenient nor does any suggestions put to
the petitioner’s witness be material.
32. That apart though a contention is raised that
the documents as marked cannot be relied on as it is
not a public document and the original had not been
produced by placing reliance on the decisions as noted
above, the contention to that effect cannot be accepted
in the present context inasmuch as the very averment
as contained in the written statement of respondent
No.1 and the plaint in the admitted suit filed by
respondent No.1 in O.S.No.107/2012 at Ex.P42 would
indicate the fact that such documents are maintained in
the schools concerned and the entries are made with
regard to the caste as contained therein though it is
37
alleged that it is entered wrongly. In fact, it is the
admitted position and the respondent No.1 in fact was
making attempts to secure corrections of the same and
had failed in such attempt as seen from the judgment
passed in O.S.No.107/2012 at Ex.P45. In the above
circumstance, keeping in view the reasons for which the
petitioner had contended that respondent No.1 is a
person belonging to ‘Byragi’ community and that the
entries to such effect has been made in the school
records has been satisfactorily brought on record, the
petitioner has discharged the burden in proving the
issue raised.
33. The learned senior counsel for the respondent
No.1, by relying on the decision in the case of Laxman
Siddappa Naik -vs- Kattimani Chandappa
Jampanna and others (AIR 1968 SC 929) – wherein it
is held that the ordinary rule is that the person, who as
a plaintiff, asserts a fact, has to prove it. The election
petitioner therein was to prove that he was a Bedar and
that would have proved that he was not a Nayaka. To
establish the fact, evidence was required to show the
38
characteristics such as custom in marriage, births,
deaths etc to distinguish the two. It is held that a bare
assertion that the appellant is a Bedar is not sufficient
to displace the acceptance of the nomination paper or
the claim of the appellant that he is a Nayaka. In that
view it is contended that the petitioner has not tendered
evidence to prove the customs and traditions followed
by ‘Byragi’ and to establish that the respondent No.1
was following the same. He therefore contends that the
petitioner has failed to prove that respondent No.1
belongs to ‘Byragi’ caste. The said decision is not of
assistance in the instant case since as already noticed
the nature of contention as putforth relating to school
records, based on which it was alleged that respondent
No.1 is ‘Byragi’, it has been proved with acceptable
evidence and the burden is discharged. In that view,
the issue No.1 is to be held in the affirmative in favour
of the petitioner and the burden is shifted on the
respondent No.1 to establish that he actually belongs to
Budaga Jangama based on the direct evidence before
39
this Court without the aid of the caste certificate which
is in the centre of dispute.
34. On that aspect, the respondent No.1 has
examined himself as RW.1 and has stated that he
belongs to Budagajangama community and that the
avocation of the parents was roaming from village to
village by playing the musical instrument called the
Budaga but they were wrongly called as Sanyasi,
Jangalu etc and the same has been entered in the sale
deeds due to illiteracy and ignorance. He states that his
parents have never affixed their signatures in the school
records and refers to the tradition and custom as also
the religious practices followed by Budagajangama
community. In that background the respondent No.1
refers to the Tahsildar having taken note of the custom
being followed and in that light having issued the caste
certificate. The respondent No.1 in order to contend
that persons belonging to Budagajangama caste are
residing in Kolar District has referred to the contents in
Kolar Gazetteer which is marked as Ex.R.1.
40
35. Essentially in order to state about the
customs and traditions followed by persons belonging to
Budagajangama and in that light having relied on the
alleged Mahazar as per Ex.R26 in support of the caste
certificate, the very persons who claim to have affixed
their signature as witnesses to the said mahazar
(Ex.R26) are examined as witnesses to state about the
customs and traditions followed by persons belonging to
Budagajangama, before this Court. Sri M.B.Anwar is
examined – RW.3. He states that respondent No.1
belongs to Budagajangama caste and that he and his
elders would normally knot their hair at the top and
wear a head scarf. They would also wear a bead chain
and carry an instrument called Budaga. They would
visit the houses seeking alms and predict the future of
the people. They would thus collect money, food grains
etc., and make a living. The custom followed in their
marriages is stated by him. Another witness
Sri Mallikarjuna Reddy is examined as RW.4. He claims
to be a member of Grama Panchayat and is also a
signatory to the alleged Mahazar (Ex.R-26). He would
41
also state that the respondent No.1 belongs to
Budagajangama caste and the custom that is followed
by them and he states that he had mentioned to the
Tahsildar about such custom being followed by
respondent No.1 which is the same as being followed by
persons belonging to Budagajangama. Sri
M.Venkataramana who is another witness to the alleged
mahazar (Ex.R-26) is examined as RW.5. The said
witness has also stated with regard to the dressing
pattern of the persons belonging to Budagajangama,
their nature of worship and the practice that is followed
in performing the marriages and also in the funeral etc.
36. The learned senior counsel for the respondent
No.1 while referring to their evidence has contended
that the customs and traditions of Budga Jangama
being followed and as referred to in the evidence has not
been disputed by the petitioner by cross examining on
that aspect and as such has relied on the decision in
the case of Gian Chand and others -vs- State of
Haryana [(2013)14 SCC 420], – wherein the effect of
cross examination by putting the version to the witness
42
and providing adequate opportunity to the witness in
the witness box to give full and proper explanation is
emphasised and states that in the absence of cross
examination the statement of the witnesses is required
to be accepted.
37. Taking into consideration such contention, at
this stage itself it is to be noted that insofar as issue
No.4 which is framed herein and in that light the
evidence tendered on the said issue by RWs.3, 4 and 5 if
it is taken into consideration, at the outset it is seen
that none of the persons belong to the community
regarding which a consideration is being made nor do
they state about their expertise to give such details.
The manner in which they have stated with regard to
the customs being followed though there is
corroboration in their version, keeping in view their age,
nature of profession and there being no material in the
first instance to indicate that apart from the
respondents No.1 and 2, Sri Kullayappa and Sri
Gangireddy who claim to belong to that community,
whether there are other persons residing in the village.
43
The evidence tendered by the said witnesses appear to
be as tutored witnesses and no reliance is possible to be
placed on their evidence even if there was no cross
examination on that aspect as essentially it is seen that
the cross examination is concentrated on the claim
made by them as mahazar witnesses.
38. Apart from the above noted witnesses one Sri
Sheshappa is examined as RW.9. The said witness no
doubt claims that he belongs to Budaga Jangama and
was the president of the Karnataka Rajya Budaga
Jangama Kshemabhivruddhi Sangha. He states that he
knows respondent No.1 since the daughter of the said
witness has married the brother of respondent No.1, Sri
Prasanna Kumar. In that view he states that
respondent No.1 belongs to Budaga Jangama
community to which he belongs. The said witness also
has stated with regard to the tradition and custom
followed by the Budaga Jangama community in the
same manner as has been stated by the other witnesses
as referred to above. However, the said witness in his
cross examination has admitted that his caste is
44
recorded as ‘Bavacha’ in the school records and the said
caste belongs to Scheduled Tribe. He states that
Bavacha and ‘Byragi’ are different castes and in the
modern society, there would be inter-caste marriages.
In that view the marriage alone cannot be the basis that
too when he himself is not proved to be Budga
Jangama. Though he denies the suggestion that he
does not belong to Budaga Jangama caste, except for
his bald statement before the Court, no material
whatsoever has been produced either with regard to the
said witness following the practices of Budaga Jangama
caste more particularly when he admits that his school
records indicate his caste as ‘Bavacha’.
39. At this stage, having taken note of the
decision in the case of Laveti Giri (supra), it is clear that
the burden to prove is on the person who seeks the
social status and by professing it seeks constitutional
socio-economic advantages. The burden is therefore
heavy on the respondent No.1 to establish not only that
there are persons belonging to Budaga Jangama in
Kolar district or even if he had migrated from any other
45
place he in fact belong to Budaga Jangama caste. The
only document apart from the disputed caste certificates
on which reliance is placed by respondent No.1 is on
Ex.R.1 viz., the Kolar Gazeteer. The learned senior
counsel for the petitioner has however relied on the
decisions in the case of Dayaram vs. Sudhir Batham
and others [(2012)1 SCC 333], wherein reference is
made to the directions issued in Madhuri Patil’s case
and it is observed that genuine candidates are denied
the benefit for want of social status certificate. Hence it
is in that view reiterated that the guidelines issued by
the Supreme Court are to be followed for determining
the caste status. Reliance is also placed on the case in
Geeta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
[(2007)10 SCC 590]. In that case where
Anthropological Survey of India prepared by one
Majumdar D.N. -‘The Radical Basis of Indian Social
Structure’ was referred with reference to the word
“Majhi” and an attempt was made to show that in such
situation the finding recorded by the High Level
Committee is erroneous, the same was not accepted by
46
the Hon’ble Supreme Court as authenticated document
and observed that no such reliance can be placed for
deciding the tribal status of the appellant therein. In
that view the learned Senior Counsel contends that the
reliance as placed on the Gazetteer (Ex.R-1) cannot be
accepted. Such reliance by itself would not be sufficient
without there being any other oral or documentary
evidence to indicate that the forefathers of the
respondent No.1 belonged to Budagajangama and that
the respondent No.1 is therefore belonging to
Budagajangama.
40. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent
No.1 has relied on the decision in the case of Anand -vs-
Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe
Claims and others [(2012) 1 SCC 113],- wherein it is
stated that while applying the affinity test, which
focuses on the ethnological connections with the
Scheduled Tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted
since with migrations, modernisation and contact with
other communities, these communities tend to develop
and adopt new traits which may not essentially match
47
with the traditional characteristics of the Tribe. Hence it
is held that affinity test may not be regarded as the
litmus test but may be used to corroborate the
documentary evidence and should not be the sole
criteria to reject the claim. Even if the said decision as
relied by learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 is
kept in view and the cross examination of RW.1 wherein
the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has sought
to bring out the fact that respondent No.1 is presently
residing in Bengaluru and that he is leading a modern
life is taken into consideration, those aspects would
have arisen as a secondary consideration if at the outset
the respondent No.1 had established that his forefathers
belonged to the Budaga Jangama community and the
change in respondent No.1 is due to economic progress.
In that regard, as noticed, apart from the oral evidence
of RW-1 and RW-9 as tendered there is no other
evidence on record even to basically establish the fact
that the forefathers of respondent No.1 were Budaga
Jangama.
48
41. Even if the parents of the respondent No.1
were not alive any other elders of the family ought to
have been examined and in that regard there is no
explanation whatsoever. Though Ex.R-1 is sought to be
relied to contend that there are persons of Budaga
Jangama caste in Kolar District, not a single person
who admittedly belongs to that community and resides
in Kotthur of Malur has been examined. The RW-9
who deposed claiming to be from Budaga Jangama
Community is from Ramanagara. Despite the
respondent No.1 has sought to contend that his uncle
Sri Kullayappa had contested as a SC candidate and
was elected as a Panchayat member and seeks to place
strong reliance on the fact that the caste certificate at
Ex.R-11 was issued to him and also issued to
respondent No.2 who is his elder brother has not been
challenged by filing objections, neither of them have
entered the witness box to state with regard to their
affinity to the caste or to speak about their predecessors
and the manner in which they were professing by
following the traditions and customs of the caste.
49
42. In fact, in the instant case, it is intriguing to
notice that respondent No.2 who is a brother of
respondent No.1, being a party to the instant
proceedings, having entered appearance through a
counsel and participated in the proceedings has not
chosen to tender evidence nor has respondent No.1
chosen to secure him as a witness. In this regard it
would be relevant to refer to the decision in the case of
Vidyadhar vs. ManikRao and another [(1999)3 SCC
573], – relied on by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, wherein it is held that where a party to the
suit does not appear in the witness box and state his
own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross
examined by the other side, a presumption would arise
that the case set up by him is not correct. Though it is
relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
only to contend that the case put forth on behalf of
respondent No.2 to support the respondent No.1 cannot
be accepted in the absence of the respondent No.2 not
having entered the witness box, the said situation in
fact in my view should be held as adverse to the case of
50
respondent No.1. Despite the learned senior counsel for
the respondent No.1 himself relying on the decision in
the case of Ajai Verma -vs- Vijai Kumari – Privy
Council (43 CWN 585), – wherein it is held that the
opinions of responsible members of the family as to the
existence of such a custom, and the grounds of their
opinion, though generally in the nature of family
tradition, are clearly admissible, no such attempt is
made in the instant case and the evidence of RW-9
cannot be considered to be the evidence of such nature
and credibility.
43. In that light, though the respondent No.1
having not examined any person belonging to his family
or the caste to state about his caste and the genealogy,
it is to be taken note that the petitioner on the other
hand has examined one Sri Muralidhar as PW.8 who is
a SC person and has been opposing the claim of
respondent No.1 to belong to SC and had thus filed
application before the Tahsildar seeking for particulars
and to oppose the claim. Similarly one Sri
M.Venkataramana has been examined as PW.9. The
51
said person also belongs to the SC. They have
contended that the respondent No.1 is not a SC and
since according to them a person not belonging to their
caste was taking away the benefit given under the
Constitution, they had made efforts to complain to the
competent authorities and also to distribute pamphlets
about the false claim of respondent No.1. Irrespective of
the evidentiary value of the deposition of PWs 8 and 9,
as already taken note except for seeking to rely on the
Kolar Gazeteer at Ex.R.1, the caste certificates issued to
him, his wife and children and on Ex.R.11 the caste
certificate of his uncle Sri Kullayappa, which are in
dispute there is no concrete evidence to establish that
the respondent No.1 belongs to Budaga Jangama.
Insofar as the caste certificate of respondent No.1 and
his family members the very manner in which it has
been obtained is the disputed question and insofar as
the caste certificate of Sri Kullayappa, as already noted,
he has not entered the witness box nor has his caste
certificate stood the test after judicial review as there
was no challenge in that regard to his election and it
52
has not been tested. Hence, from the available material,
the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn when
no reliable evidence is placed before this Court to prove
that he is a Budaga Jangama, is that the respondent
No.1 is not a person belonging to Budaga Jangama
caste. Hence Issue No.4 is held in the negative against
respondent No.1.
44. The next issue for consideration is with regard
to the validity of the caste certificate. On that aspect
though issue No.2 casts the burden on the petitioner to
prove that the caste certificate dated 03.04.2012
produced along with the nomination form by the first
respondent as belonging to Budagajangama caste is
concocted and obtained by playing fraud, keeping in
view the nature of the contentions urged and the
material brought on record it would also boil down to
take note at the outset the position as to whether a
second application by the petitioner would have been
sustainable at all when the earlier application seeking
for caste certificate admittedly had been rejected and
such order had attained finality. In that background
53
the evidence available on record on that aspect is
necessary to be taken note.
45. The contention as put forth on behalf of the
petitioner in that regard is that at an earlier point when
the respondent No.1 had made an application dated
04.04.2008 seeking issue of caste certificate as Budaga
Jangama, an endorsement was issued to him stating
that there are no persons belonging to Budaga Jangama
caste in Majera Kottur village. The validity of such
endorsement dated 04.04.2008 was considered by the
District Caste Verification Committee on 12.04.2008
and it was held therein that the respondent No.1
belongs to Byragi caste and the request for issue of SC
certificate as Budaga Jangama is rejected. The said
order has remained undisturbed till today. The said
factual aspect is not disputed inasmuch as the
respondent No.1 in his objection statement has also
admitted the said position and has sought to explain
that he did not choose to challenge the same as he did
not have sufficient material at that point and therefore
he claims to have filed the subsequent application. The
54
evidence to that effect is available through the
deposition of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4. The endorsement
dated 04.04.2008 is at Ex.P11. A perusal of the same
would indicate that the same is issued by PW.2 on
04.04.2008 wherein it is categorically stated that the
respondent No.1 has made the application dated
04.04.2008 seeking issue of caste certificate and the
PW.2 Smt.Harishilpa who was the then Tahsildar
having verified the application and having perused the
report of the Revenue Inspector has taken into
consideration the report wherein it is stated that
respondent No.1 belongs to Byragi community. It is
also observed therein that the school records of
respondent No.1 shows that he belongs to Byragi
community. The conclusion is that even though it is
stated that persons are engaged in fortune telling, the
instrument known as Budaga is not used as they do not
belong to Budaga Jangama caste and the persons
belonging to that caste are not residing in the village.
46. The document at Ex.P12 is the proceedings of
the Caste Verification Committee dated 12.04.2008
55
while taking note of the claim made by Sri Gangireddy
and the respondent No.1. A detailed consideration is
made keeping in view the notification dated 07.09.2004
under Article 16(4) of the Constitution and after
referring to the school records in the course of the
enquiry has arrived at the conclusion that the
respondent No.1 and Sri Gangireddy belong to the
Byragi caste. The respondent No.1 though filed the writ
petition in W.P.No.5932/2008, what is assailed therein
is only the endorsement dated 04.04.2008 (Ex.P11) and
not the order dated 12.04.2008 of the District Caste
Verification Committee (Ex.P12). The said writ petition
was disposed of on 12.09.2008, a copy of which is at
Ex.P13. A perusal of the same would indicate that the
petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the
respondent No.1 herein to question the correctness of
the endorsement dated 04.04.2008 under Section 3(b)
of the Act, 1990. Though such liberty was reserved to
assail the endorsement, the correctness of the
endorsement dated 04.04.2008 (Ex.P11) had already
been considered by the District Caste Verification
56
Committee as per Ex.P12 and the same had not been
brought on record in the writ petition. Be that as it
may, the rejection of the application has not been
assailed before any forum nor was the conclusion of the
Caste Verification Committee dated 12.04.2008
assailed, as such the same had attained finality.
47. When this was the position, one Sri
N.M.Amarnath had filed an application under the Right
to Information Act seeking particulars as to whether any
caste certificate is issued to respondent No.1 and had
accordingly sought for a copy, if the same had been
issued. PW.3 who was the Tahsildar at that point in
time has issued the endorsement dated 29.09.2011 as
at Ex.P14 indicating that the verification of the records
for the periods 02.04.2008 to 03.09.2011 would disclose
that no caste certificate has been issued to respondent
No.1 as Budaga Jangama. In that background, the said
Sri Gangireddy and the respondent No.1 herein filed a
suit in O.S.No.107/2012, a copy of the plaint in the said
suit is marked at Ex.P42. Though initially a declaration
of the caste as Budaga Jangama was sought, the same
57
has been amended subsequently for a direction to the
defendants to rectify the school records and indicate the
caste as Budaga Jangama in place of Byragi. It is
relevant to note that in the plaint, the respondent No.1
herein as plaintiff No.2 has not stated about the caste
certificate for the purpose of election as applied but he
has averred that it is required for his employment as he
is unemployed and is searching for job. This is referred
by me only to indicate the manner in which respondent
No.1 was making attempt to secure a caste certificate in
any manner whatsoever.
48. The said suit has been dismissed by the
judgment dated 27.09.2013 which is marked as Ex.P45.
It is no doubt true the Civil Court has taken note of the
pendency of the issue relating to caste certificate before
this Court in this petition. However, the issues as
framed for consideration therein would indicate that the
plaintiffs therein viz., respondent No.1 and Sri
Gangireddy had failed to prove that they belonged to
Budagajangama caste and also had failed to prove that
the school authorities had wrongly mentioned the caste
58
as Byragi. When a conclusive finding had been
recorded about the correctness of the entry in the
school records and a rectification was declined, the
same is to be taken note herein. Therefore, the said
conclusion and the documents as noted above itself
would indicate that the respondent No.1 could not have
filed one more application unless the findings of the
District Caste Verification Committee and the Civil
Court was set aside in an appropriate proceedings in
accordance with law.
49. The learned senior counsel for respondent
No.1 no doubt referred to the cross examination of Sri
D.V.Ramamurthy (PW-4), the then Tahsildar wherein he
has admitted that if the first application has been
rejected only on the ground that the same is not
supported by documents, a fresh application could be
received if such application is accompanied by
documents. In that view it is contended by the learned
senior counsel for respondent No.1 that the second
application made by respondent No.1 in the year 2012
based on which it is claimed that the caste certificate
59
dated 03.04.2012 is issued is justified. However, what is
noticed is that PW.4 has also qualified his statement by
further indicating that at the first time if it is rejected
stating that he does not belong to that caste, a fresh
application will not be received.
50. The learned senior counsel for respondent
No.1 has also relied on the decision in the case of
C.M.Armugam -vs- S. Rajgopal and others [(1976) 1
SCC 863], – wherein it is held that it is true that the
Court had held in the earlier case that on embracing
Christianity, the respondent therein had ceased to be a
member of Adi Dravida caste in the case relating to the
earlier election on the basis of the evidence led therein
and that cannot be resjudicata in the present case
where fresh evidence has been adduced on behalf of all
the parties and the parties are not the same, to contend
that the earlier consideration will not be a bar. The
facts therein are not akin to the facts herein and it is
observed therein that the parties are also not the same.
The decision in the case of Ram Chandra Singh -vs-
Savitri Devi and others [(2003) 8 SCC 319], – wherein
60
reference is made to an earlier case of the Supreme
Court in which it is held that the principle of finality of
litigation cannot be pressed to the extent of such
absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud. It is held
that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice
between the parties. The said decision is also not of
assistance.
51. In the instant case as already noticed,
through the documents at Exhs.P11 and P12 while
rejecting the application dated 04.04.2008 filed by
respondent No.1 the application is not just rejected for
want of documents in support of the same but a
detailed consideration of the factual report of the
Revenue Inspector, the school records and the position
in the village is taken into consideration and a
categorical finding is rendered that the respondent No.1
belongs to Byragi community and that there are no
persons belonging to Budaga Jangama in Kottur village.
In such situation unless such finding even if erroneous
was rectified in an appropriate proceeding, the
subsequent application even if filed a consideration
61
thereof would be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
Therefore a subsequent application could not have been
filed. Hence apart from the fact as to whether such
application was actually filed, considered and orders
passed, even if it was filed, any order would be without
the force of law and the caste certificate even if issued
cannot be recognised as a valid document when earlier
proceedings are suppressed.
52. In that regard it is relevant to take note of the
decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner in the case of Chengalvaraya Naidu
(Dead) by LRs vs. Jagannath (dead) by Lrs and
others [(1994)1 SCC 1],- wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that even a decree obtained by
nondisclosure of the document amounted to fraud on
oath and the decree is liable to be set aside. It is held a
fraud is an act of deliberate deception with design of
securing something by taking unfair advantage of
another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s
loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. A
litigant who approaches the Court is bound to produce
62
all documents and if any documents are withheld, he
would be guilty of playing fraud. Reliance is also placed
on the case of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar vs. State of
Maharashtra and others [(2005)7 SCC 605],- wherein
it is held that fraud and collusion vitiate even the most
solemn proceedings in any civilised system of
jurisprudence. Fraud and justice never dwell together. A
collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights
of others would render the transaction void ab initio.
Fraud and deception are synonymous. Fraud is
anathema to all equitable principles and any affair
tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by
the application of any equitable doctrine including res-
judicata.
53. In that background, firstly even if such
application had been filed, no other additional material
to support such application for a consideration to be
made in that regard has been relied upon nor is there
any change in circumstance than what it was earlier
pointed out inasmuch as the school records etc., had all
63
remained the same and there was no scope for filing
another application.
54. The Tahsildars who had worked at Mulbagal
during the periods 26.11.2007 to 22.08.2009,
03.09.2009 to 12.08.2012 and 06.02.2012 to
22.04.2013 have been examined as PWs.2, 3 and 4.
Insofar as PW.2 the witness has stated with regard to
the rejection of the earlier application and no caste
certificate being issued. Insofar as PW.3 he has stated
that he was authorised to issue caste certificate only
upto 03.12.2011 and thereafter PW.4 had assumed
office on 06.02.2012. The respondent No.1 is seeking to
rely on the document at Ex.R.9, an order alleged to have
been passed by Sri Jayamadhava the then Tahsildar
who is presently working as the Land Acquisition
Officer, Ramanagar and is examined as PW.3. The said
order bearing No.130/11-12 dated 27.03.2012 is to the
effect that the caste certificate could be issued as
Budagajangama to respondent No.1. In the cross
examination of PW.2, though the order is confronted, he
has disputed about passing such order. Though the
64
document at Ex.R.8 was shown to him about the order
dated 13.07.2005, he has stated that since the Grade II
Tahsildar had already taken over he did not take any
further action pursuant to the letter dated 24.03.2012
received from the Deputy Commissioner. The order
dated 27.03.2012 (Ex.R.9) though shown to him and
marked, he has categorically stated that though he sees
one signature as the original signature of the document,
the other signature shown in the document is for
attestation of the copy. He has stated that the
signatures are not his and the suggestion to that effect
has also been denied. He has categorically stated that
the order at Ex.R.9 shown to him is seen by him for the
first time in the box. He has categorically denied that
he has passed the order at Ex.R.9. He has stated that
he has no objection even if the said signature is referred
to expert opinion.
55. In the background of the said evidence, a
perusal of Ex.R.9 would disclose that even if the same is
produced as a copy secured from the records, when
such order is stated to have not been passed at all by
65
PW.3 who is alleged to be its author and when the
original is not available, the same cannot be relied
upon. The signature as contained in the document has
not been admitted by PW.3 and no steps whatsoever
has been taken by the respondent No.1 to establish the
genuineness of the signature as belonging to that of
PW.3. If that be the position, the entry as contained in
the register at Ex.P59 as an entry for h+aving issued the
caste certificate to the first respondent also cannot be
relied upon. The process for such issue of caste
certificate is based on the alleged mahazar relied upon
by the respondent No.1 as at Ex.R26. Though the
witnesses RWs.3 and 4 claim to be witnesses to the
alleged mahazar at Ex.R26 and contend that the same
was drawn when the Tahsildar had visited the village,
none of the Tahsildars examined as PW-2 to 4 have
admitted to the same. The document at Ex.R26 is a
copy said to have been obtained from the records and
the original is not available. Though RWs.3 and 4 have
identified their names in the alleged mahazar at
Exhs.R.26(a) and (c), the signature of the Tahsildar is
66
not identified and marked. The said witnesses have
however stated that the Tahsildar who has recorded the
mahazar is Sri Jayamadhava, who in any case has been
examined as PW.3 on behalf of the petitioner. In his
evidence he has stated that he was authorised to issue
the caste certificate only up to 03.12.2011 and the
Tahsildar Sri Ramamurthy (PW.4) had assumed office
on 06.02.2012. If that be the position, firstly, it cannot
be accepted that on the alleged date of mahazar dated
17.02.2012 the said Tahsildar Sri Jayamadhava could
have drawn the Mahazar. That apart the signature of
Sri Jayamadhava is not found therein nor is it admitted
by him though attempt was made on behalf of
respondent No.1 to refer to a mark therein and suggest
to PW-3 that it is his signature.
56. In addition, the very contents therein would
not inspire the confidence of the Court that it has been
actually drawn by a responsible Officer of the cadre of
Tahsildar. Though in the evidence of RW.3 and 4 they
have stated that the Tahsildar had asked them about
the customs and tradition of the people belonging to the
67
caste of respondent No.1, the details to that effect is not
found in the alleged mahazar. That apart even if a spot
mahazar relating to the caste is to be drawn, and in that
light the same is to be made the basis for issue of caste
certificate, one cannot ignore the procedure that is
enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Madhuri Patil (supra). In the normal circumstance, if
the Tahsildar was holding a spot verification and
drawing a mahazar, the appropriate course ought to
have been to visit the house of the applicant, record the
statement of the family members and neighbours, verify
the school records and incorporate the same in the
mahazar. Instead the procedure as adopted to the
alleged mahazar is taken note, there is no reason as to
why if in fact the Tahsildar had visited the village, he
should have recorded the statement of RW.4 who even
as per his own statement had come to the said village.
That apart it does not contain the statement of any
other member of the same caste if there were residents
of the same caste in the village.
68
57. Therefore, the very nature of the documents
sought to be relied on and the explanation sought to be
put forth for the originals not being available due to
which copies are obtained, on the face of it would
indicate that the fabrication is writ large. Though the
copies of the other documents are sought to be relied
on, in the nature of the conclusion as reached on issue
No.1 and 2 and also the nature of consideration made
with regard to a second application not being
sustainable and further the very veracity of the manner
of consideration of the second application sought to be
established by the respondent No.1, it would indicate
that the caste certificate even if obtained by respondent
No.1 is by manipulation of records and the documents
cannot be accepted as established. The caste
certificates at Exhs.R-21 to 24 issued to the other family
members in such circumstance also will not have
evidentiary value in support of respondent No.1. The
decision in the case of State of Bihar and others -vs-
Sumit Anand [(2005) 12 SCC 248], – wherein, on facts,
it was held that in view of the fact the father,
69
grandfather, mother and maternal uncle had all been
granted the certificate certifying that they belong to
“Gond” community, the respondent therein was also
entitled to the certificate, as relied by the learned senior
counsel for respondent No.1 is also of no assistance in
the present circumstance. In the instant case no
certificates of the predecessors are relied, but what are
relied are the certificates which are obtained in a similar
manner which are also in dispute.
58. The decision in the case of Ayaaubkhan
Noorkhan Pathan -vs- State of Mahrashtra and
others [(2013) 4 SCC 465], – wherein it is stated that
the Scrutiny Committee in ordinary circumstances
examined the matter and after investigation through its
vigilance cell and considering all the documentary
evidence on record and after being satisfied granted the
caste verification certificate, Section 114(e) of the
Evidence Act provided the Court to pronounce that the
decision taken by the Scrutiny Committee has been
done in regular course and the caste certificate has
been issued after due verification. It is held therein that
70
very strong material is required to rebut such
presumption and the onus of rebuttal lies on the person
who alleges that the act had not been regularly
performed or procedure required under law had not
been followed, relied on by the learned senior counsel
for respondent No.1 is also not of assistance in the
instant case wherein all the above stated discrepancies
are noticed. In that light the need to refer to the other
evidence would be unnecessary.
59. Further the respondent No.1 in an attempt to
establish that the order dated 27.03.2012 is passed by
PW.3 has sought to rely on the documents at Exhs.R.2
to R.5 and it is contended that pursuant to the orders
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the Tahsildar has
thereafter held the proceedings and arrived at the
conclusion. Though such attempt is made by
respondent No.1, as already noticed the Tahsildars who
had worked during the relevant period viz., PWs.3 and 4
have been examined and they have disputed any order
being passed by them. In that circumstance when the
entire basis for the reliance on the caste certificate at
71
Ex.R.25 is the order dated 27.03.2012 and when
through the above discussion, I have already arrived at
the conclusion that the passing of such order is not
satisfactorily proved, the reliance placed on the other
documents including the caste certificate issued to the
family members as also the details as contained in
Ex.R.68 to indicate that the caste certificate was issued
to the other family members of the petitioner would also
not be justified. Further the register at Ex.P59 which is
marked by the petitioner to indicate that the entry
contained therein at Sl.No.130/11-12 is not a genuine
entry, which is on the other hand relied on by
respondent No.1 seeking to contend that such entry is
contained in the register, firstly it is seen that the said
entry sought to be relied on at Sl.No.130/11-12 is the
only entry in the register which is in the nature of an
order while in the said register all other entries is not of
that nature except to make an entry of the particulars.
Further the Tahsildar who was examined has also
stated that the entry in such nature in the register is
not made. In that background the complaint as made
72
by the Tahsildar against Sri M.Srinivas who was
examined herein by respondent No.1 as RW.8 would
also indicate the allegation that the said documents
have been inserted by him to aid the respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1 no doubt has relied on the document
at Ex.R65 which is a ‘B’ report filed after the
investigation was carried out pursuant to the complaint
lodged against Sri M.Srinivas.
60. A perusal of the document at Ex.R.65 no
doubt would disclose that on investigation it is reported
that no case is made out. In that regard the correctness
or otherwise of the report need not be gone into in the
instant proceedings inasmuch as the same if at all is to
be assailed is to be done in appropriate proceedings.
However, for the instant purpose what is necessary to
be taken note is that the ultimate conclusion herein is
with regard to the validity or otherwise of the caste
certificate even if issued in favour of respondent No.1 as
at Ex.R.25. In that regard as already noticed above, the
Tahsildars who had served during the period have been
examined as PWs.2, 3 and 4 and all of them have
73
denied that the caste certificate has been ordered to be
issued by them nor is it issued by them. From the
detailed cross-examination, nothing is elicited to
indicate that the said witness had in fact issued the
caste certificate. The same being one aspect of the
matter, insofar as the caste certificate being claimed by
respondent No.1 and even though a computer generated
copy is relied on, the proceedings as noticed will
disclose that in the circumstances where at an earlier
point the request for caste certificate had been declined
by a detailed order and the very nature in which the
subsequent application is said to have been made and
the proceedings thereto is sought to be relied on by
respondent No.1, it would indicate that the evidence as
noticed can only lead to the conclusion that no
appropriate procedure known to law has been followed
to order grant of caste certificate to respondent No.1
and in that view even if a certificate has been generated
from the electronic records, the same is without
appropriate basis and cannot be considered as a valid
caste certificate.
74
61. Further, respondent No.1 though has relied
on the documents at Exhs.R.41 to R.46 being the copies
of the deposition of the witnesses and the
communication of the DDPI relied on in the suit in
O.S.No.107/2012 the same would not be of any
assistance to respondent No.1 inasmuch as the suit has
ultimately been dismissed and even though an
observation is contained in the judgment thereto
relating to the consideration of the caste certificate
being made in the instant petition, the said witnesses
have not been examined before this Court to speak
about the caste status of respondent No.1. In fact while
considering the matter on Issue No.4 raised herein it
has been noted that except for the nature of the
evidence tendered through the witnesses who had been
examined, no reliable evidence to establish the caste of
respondent No.1 to belong to Budaga Jangama has
been tendered. From the very decision as relied on by
the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the case
of Sobha Hymavathi Devi -vs- Setti Gangadhara
Swamy and others [(2005) 2 SCC 244] – wherein it is
75
held that therefore in any view of the matter, it cannot
be said that the High Court exercising the jurisdiction
under the Representation of the People Act in an
election petition is precluded from going into the
question of status of a candidate or proceeding to make
an independent inquiry into that question in spite of the
production of a certificate under the Act. At best, such
certificate could be used in evidence and its evidentiary
value will have to be assessed in the light of the other
evidence let in, in an election petition. Therefore nothing
turns on the factum of a certificate being issued by the
authority concerned under the Act 1993. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court was also satisfied in that case that no
proper enquiry preceded the issuance of the certificate
and such certificate was issued merely the say so of the
appellant.
62. If that be the position, even though an
attempt has been made by respondent No.1 in seeking
to justify the caste certificate issued in his favour and
when major discrepancies in the procedure is noticed
76
and also when under Issue No.4 the respondent No.1
had an opportunity to tender independent evidence
before this Court to establish his caste status and he
has failed to do so, the benefit of caste certificate sought
to be relied on even if it was genuinely obtained would
not be available to respondent No.1, more particularly
in a circumstance where an earlier application had been
rejected taking into consideration the entries in the
school records relating to the caste of respondent No.1
and respondent No.1 having failed in the suit wherein
he had sought for rectification of the entries in the
school records. The said school documents being in the
same position will continue to militate against the
respondent No.1 and there being no other evidence
available on record, no other conclusion could have
been reached even if a subsequent application was filed
by him seeking for issue of the caste certificate. In that
view, the caste certificate as claimed to be relied upon
by respondent No.1 would be of no consequence
whatsoever.
77
63. Hence the issue Nos.2, 3 and 4 are
accordingly answered holding that the caste certificate
relied by the respondent No.1 is by playing fraud and as
such the respondent No.1 was not qualified to contest
the election from the constituency reserved for Schedule
Caste. Hence the acceptance of the nomination of the
respondent No.1 is illegal and has materially effected
the election result.
64. Insofar as the other issues, though the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on
the decision in the case of Konappa Rudrappa
Nadgouda vs. Vishwanath Reddy and another (AIR
1969 SC 447); Vishwanatha Reddy vs. Konappa
Rudrappa Nadgouda (AIR 1969 SC 604) and
Kammeng Dolo vs. Atumwelly [(2017) 7 SCC 512] to
contend with regard to the manner in which the thrown
away votes are to be transferred to the petitioner and
declare the petitioner as elected and has also relied
upon the evidence as tendered with regard to the
pamphlets and the newspaper advertisements that had
been issued, at this juncture I do not find it necessary
78
to advert to the details in that regard inasmuch as the
term of the Legislative Assembly is to end shortly in
about a month and the calendar of events for the
election has already been announced.
65. Further though the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner has referred to the decisions in the case of
Harjit singh Mann vs. Umrao Singh and others
[(1980)1 SCC 713] and J.H.Patel vs. Subhan Khan
[(1996)5 SCC 312], to contend that the respondent No.1
had not subscribed to the oath and the nomination form
and in that regard has referred to the nomination form,
while on the other hand the learned senior counsel has
asserted that the oath has been subscribed to, the said
aspect also does not arise at this juncture since even if
the same was not raised as a issue nor pleaded, the said
aspect was not put to the respondent at least when he
was in the witness box, but has been raised only at the
time of argument. In that view, I do not find it
necessary to answer the said contention. Hence no
specific orders are made on Issue No.7 and 8.
79
66. For the aforestated reasons, the following:
ORDER
i) It is declared that the respondent No.1
belongs to Byragi caste.
ii) It is further declared that the respondent
No.1 has failed to establish that he belongs
to Beda (Budaga) Jangama caste and as
such the caste certificate dated 03.04.2012
relied upon is without the sanction of law.
iii) The acceptance of the nomination of
respondent No.1 and the consequent
declaration as elected to Karnataka
Assembly through certificate dated
08.05.2013 is declared illegal.
iv) The petition is accordingly allowed in part
with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.
Sd/-
JUDGE
akc/bms