Subbarao Vs. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad &amp; Others
served on the appellant did not exactly correspond to that in the original in that in the latter one of the paragraphs was stated to be true to the personal knowledge of the petitioner while in the former that paragraph was omitted from this group.23. The other type of effect which was claimed to constitute non-compliance with S. 81 (3) was that the words true copy with the signature of the petitioner underneath were not put down in one of the annexures to the petition, copies of which were annexed to the copies of the petition filed. The order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner was filed with the original petition as an annexure to it, and certified copies of that order were annexed to the copies of the petition. But this certified copy did not contain an endorsement stating that it was a true copy with the signature of the petitioner.24. The High Court had held that so far as the defect in not reproducing the signature in the petition was concerned, it was cured by the fact that every page of the copy of the petition was attested to be a true copy and therefore it would not matter if the last page did not contain the signature. As regards the second, the High Court held that the failure to include the paragraph in the verification was only a clerical defect which had crept in through oversight as regards the other that it was no defect at all. This decision was upheld by this Court holding that the word copy in S. 81 (3) meant a copy which was substantially so and which did not contain any material or substantial variation. By copy in S. 81(3) was meant not an exact copy but only one so true that nobody by any possibility misunderstands it not being the same as the original. Applying this test, this Court came to the conclusion that there was no failure to comply with the last part of S. 81 (3), with the result that S. 90(3) of the Act was not attracted.25. This Court besides left open the question as to whether any part of S. 81(3) was directory or whether any portion of it was mandatory. In the present case also, we do not propose to deal with the larger question as to whether S. 81 (3) or any portion of it is merely directory. In view of the decision of this Court it would be clear that if there is a substantial compliance with the requirement of S. 81 (3), the election petition cannot be dismissed by the Tribunal under S. 90 (3). The question then is whether on the facts above-stated, there is or is not a sufficient and substantial compliance with S. 81 (3). We have already pointed out that the appellant has complied with the following requirements :(1) The petition has been accompanied by the requisite number of copies.(2) The copies that accompanied the petition were true copies.(3) Each of those copies bore the signatures of the petitioner.26. If the signature of the petitioner whose name is set out in the body of the petition is appended at the end, surely it authenticates the contents of the document. Now in regard to this the learned Judges of the High Court themselves observed after referring to the terms of S. 81 (3) :"No doubt, what is necessary is a substantial compliance with the requirement of attestation. For instance, if it is proved that the election petitioner has signed animo attestendi, and omitted the words true copy by mistake or inadvertently, there is a substantial requirement of the compliance of S. 81 (3). The same way be said if the relative positions of the words true copy and of the signature one below the other are not correct."They however held that as there was no evidence of the signature having been appended animo attestendi, there was non-compliance with S. 81 (3). The learned Solicitor-General while not disputing the correctness of the observations of the learned Judges just extracted pressed upon us that the signature at the end of the copy was meant only as a copy of that in the original petition and could not satisfy the requirement as to attestation of the copy. He also submitted that the position would have been different if there were two signatures instead of one at the end of the copy even if the words true copy were omitted to be put down. In that case, he said, one signature could be treated as representing the copy of the signature on the original and the other might be taken to have been made animo attestendi. We do not however consider that there is really need for so much refinement when one to look at whether there is a substantial compliance with the requirement of this provision. If the signatures now found on the copies were intended to authenticate the document to which it is appended viz., the copy, it would only mean that the copy did not reproduce the signature in the original.There is no compelling necessity to hold that the signatures were merely intended to be a copy of those on the original in order to spell out a non-compliance with S. 81(3), seeing that a signature in original was not needed on the copy and a writing copying out the name of the signatory would suffice. The decision of this Court in Murarkas case, C. A. Nos. 30 and 31 of 1963 D/- 7-5-1963 (SC) is authority for the position that the absence of a writing in the copy indicating the signature in the original would not detract the copy from being a true copy. In the circumstances, we consider that there has been substantial compliance with the requirement of S. 81 (3) in the petition that was filed by the appellant and the learned Judges were in error in directing the dismissal of the petition.
1[ds]14. We are not impressed by this argument. When S. 81(3) requires an election petition to be accompanied by the requisite number of copies, it becomes a requirement for the presentation of the election petition to the Commission, and therefore a condition precedent for the proper presentation of an election petition. If that is a requirement of S. 81, no distinction can be drawn between the requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) and of sub-sec. (3). We might add that if there is a total and complete non-compliance with the provisions of S. 81(3), the election petition might not be "an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part" within S. 80 of the Act. We are therefore inclined to consider that if there had been such a non-compliance with the requirement of sub-sec. (3) not merely the Election Commission under S. 85 but the Election Tribunal under S. 90(3) would prima facie not merely be justified but would be required to dismiss the electiondo not however consider that there is really need for so much refinement when one to look at whether there is a substantial compliance with the requirement of this provision. If the signatures now found on the copies were intended to authenticate the document to which it is appended viz., the copy, it would only mean that the copy did not reproduce the signature in the original.There is no compelling necessity to hold that the signatures were merely intended to be a copy of those on the original in order to spell out a non-compliance with S. 81(3), seeing that a signature in original was not needed on the copy and a writing copying out the name of the signatory would suffice. The decision of this Court in Murarkas case, C. A. Nos. 30 and 31 of 1963 D/- 7-5-1963 (SC) is authority for the position that the absence of a writing in the copy indicating the signature in the original would not detract the copy from being a true copy. In the circumstances, we consider that there has been substantial compliance with the requirement of S. 81 (3) in the petition that was filed by the appellant and the learned Judges were in error in directing the dismissal of the petition.
### Instruction:
Predict whether the case will result in an affirmative (1) or negative (0) decision for the appeal, and then provide a thorough explanation using key sentences to support your prediction.

### Input:
served on the appellant did not exactly correspond to that in the original in that in the latter one of the paragraphs was stated to be true to the personal knowledge of the petitioner while in the former that paragraph was omitted from this group.23. The other type of effect which was claimed to constitute non-compliance with S. 81 (3) was that the words true copy with the signature of the petitioner underneath were not put down in one of the annexures to the petition, copies of which were annexed to the copies of the petition filed. The order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner was filed with the original petition as an annexure to it, and certified copies of that order were annexed to the copies of the petition. But this certified copy did not contain an endorsement stating that it was a true copy with the signature of the petitioner.24. The High Court had held that so far as the defect in not reproducing the signature in the petition was concerned, it was cured by the fact that every page of the copy of the petition was attested to be a true copy and therefore it would not matter if the last page did not contain the signature. As regards the second, the High Court held that the failure to include the paragraph in the verification was only a clerical defect which had crept in through oversight as regards the other that it was no defect at all. This decision was upheld by this Court holding that the word copy in S. 81 (3) meant a copy which was substantially so and which did not contain any material or substantial variation. By copy in S. 81(3) was meant not an exact copy but only one so true that nobody by any possibility misunderstands it not being the same as the original. Applying this test, this Court came to the conclusion that there was no failure to comply with the last part of S. 81 (3), with the result that S. 90(3) of the Act was not attracted.25. This Court besides left open the question as to whether any part of S. 81(3) was directory or whether any portion of it was mandatory. In the present case also, we do not propose to deal with the larger question as to whether S. 81 (3) or any portion of it is merely directory. In view of the decision of this Court it would be clear that if there is a substantial compliance with the requirement of S. 81 (3), the election petition cannot be dismissed by the Tribunal under S. 90 (3). The question then is whether on the facts above-stated, there is or is not a sufficient and substantial compliance with S. 81 (3). We have already pointed out that the appellant has complied with the following requirements :(1) The petition has been accompanied by the requisite number of copies.(2) The copies that accompanied the petition were true copies.(3) Each of those copies bore the signatures of the petitioner.26. If the signature of the petitioner whose name is set out in the body of the petition is appended at the end, surely it authenticates the contents of the document. Now in regard to this the learned Judges of the High Court themselves observed after referring to the terms of S. 81 (3) :"No doubt, what is necessary is a substantial compliance with the requirement of attestation. For instance, if it is proved that the election petitioner has signed animo attestendi, and omitted the words true copy by mistake or inadvertently, there is a substantial requirement of the compliance of S. 81 (3). The same way be said if the relative positions of the words true copy and of the signature one below the other are not correct."They however held that as there was no evidence of the signature having been appended animo attestendi, there was non-compliance with S. 81 (3). The learned Solicitor-General while not disputing the correctness of the observations of the learned Judges just extracted pressed upon us that the signature at the end of the copy was meant only as a copy of that in the original petition and could not satisfy the requirement as to attestation of the copy. He also submitted that the position would have been different if there were two signatures instead of one at the end of the copy even if the words true copy were omitted to be put down. In that case, he said, one signature could be treated as representing the copy of the signature on the original and the other might be taken to have been made animo attestendi. We do not however consider that there is really need for so much refinement when one to look at whether there is a substantial compliance with the requirement of this provision. If the signatures now found on the copies were intended to authenticate the document to which it is appended viz., the copy, it would only mean that the copy did not reproduce the signature in the original.There is no compelling necessity to hold that the signatures were merely intended to be a copy of those on the original in order to spell out a non-compliance with S. 81(3), seeing that a signature in original was not needed on the copy and a writing copying out the name of the signatory would suffice. The decision of this Court in Murarkas case, C. A. Nos. 30 and 31 of 1963 D/- 7-5-1963 (SC) is authority for the position that the absence of a writing in the copy indicating the signature in the original would not detract the copy from being a true copy. In the circumstances, we consider that there has been substantial compliance with the requirement of S. 81 (3) in the petition that was filed by the appellant and the learned Judges were in error in directing the dismissal of the petition.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
14. We are not impressed by this argument. When S. 81(3) requires an election petition to be accompanied by the requisite number of copies, it becomes a requirement for the presentation of the election petition to the Commission, and therefore a condition precedent for the proper presentation of an election petition. If that is a requirement of S. 81, no distinction can be drawn between the requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) and of sub-sec. (3). We might add that if there is a total and complete non-compliance with the provisions of S. 81(3), the election petition might not be "an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part" within S. 80 of the Act. We are therefore inclined to consider that if there had been such a non-compliance with the requirement of sub-sec. (3) not merely the Election Commission under S. 85 but the Election Tribunal under S. 90(3) would prima facie not merely be justified but would be required to dismiss the electiondo not however consider that there is really need for so much refinement when one to look at whether there is a substantial compliance with the requirement of this provision. If the signatures now found on the copies were intended to authenticate the document to which it is appended viz., the copy, it would only mean that the copy did not reproduce the signature in the original.There is no compelling necessity to hold that the signatures were merely intended to be a copy of those on the original in order to spell out a non-compliance with S. 81(3), seeing that a signature in original was not needed on the copy and a writing copying out the name of the signatory would suffice. The decision of this Court in Murarkas case, C. A. Nos. 30 and 31 of 1963 D/- 7-5-1963 (SC) is authority for the position that the absence of a writing in the copy indicating the signature in the original would not detract the copy from being a true copy. In the circumstances, we consider that there has been substantial compliance with the requirement of S. 81 (3) in the petition that was filed by the appellant and the learned Judges were in error in directing the dismissal of the petition.
