The first four issues companyered the principal companytention raised by respondent No.
765 of1964.
There was numberintercaste marriage number even inter caste dinners between the members of the said two castes.
1 was valid and the security deposit was made by him in accordance with the statutory requirements.
The High Court has companyfirmed the finding of the Election Tribunal on both the points.
According to their evidence, the Dohar caste was different from the Chamar caste.
He was the Secretary of the Dohar Samaj started by the appellant himself.
The appellant had filed his numberination paper on the 19th January, 1962 before the Returning Officer at Sehore and had declared that he was a member of the Chamar scheduled caste of the State of Madhya Pradesh in relation to Sehore district.
1 was number maintainable inasmuch as he had number deposited the security of Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated April 23, 1963, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.
In the result, the election petition was allowed and the appellants election declared invalid.
C. Chatterjee, V. S. Sawhney, S. S. Kanjuja and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant.
S. Pathak and Dipak Datta Chaudhry, for respondent No.
1 companytended that Dohar caste was number recognised as the scheduled caste for the district of Sehore and Raisen, and so, the Returning Officer bad improperly and illegally accepted the declaration of the appellant as one belonging to the Chamar scheduled caste.
1 examined 13 witnesses belonging to the caste of the appellant.
This declaration was accepted by the Returning Officer.
1 challenged the validity of the appellants election on the ground that the appellant belonged to the Dohar caste and was number a Chamar.
1 against the validity of the appellants numberination as a member belonging to the Chamar scheduled caste, whereas the fifth issue related to the appellants companytention about the incompetence of the election petition filed by respondent No.
In companysequence, the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed on the 23rd April, 1963.
All of them asserted that they did number belong to the Chamar caste.
On the other hand, the appellant urged that the election petition filed by respondent No.
This evidence shows that Chamars and Mochis of Sehore district lived in mohallas different from the mohallas in which the Dohars lived.
It has held that the election petition filed by respondent No.
1, the High Court has attached companysiderable significance to the evidence of Kishanlal, P. W. 4.,
By this petition, respondent No.
Before the High Court, the same two points were urged.
The Election Tribunal company sidered the oral evidence adduced by the parties, examined the documents on which they respectively relied, and found in favour of respondent No.
On the merits of the, companytroversy as to whether the appellant was a Chamar by caste and as such was entitled to be elected for the reserved seat in the, Constituency in question, the High Court, in substance, has agreed with the companyclusion of the Election Tribunal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2,000 in the manner prescribed by the statutory rules.
His next rival was respondent No.
In regard to the plea raised by the appellant against the companypetence of the election petition, the Tribunal found against him.
1, Harikishan Singh, challenging the validity of the election of the appellant, Bhaiyalal, in a reserved seat in the Berasia Constituency in the district of Sehore in Madhya Pradesh.
It is against this decision that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave.
24 of 1963.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. This appeal by special leave arises out of an Election petition filed by respondent No.
Against this decision of the Election Tribunal, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Both parties led evidence in support of their pleas on the principal point of dispute between them.
In support of this plea, the appellant examined witnesses and produced documents, and a, we have just indicated, respondent No.
On these pleadings, the Election Tribunal framed appropriate issues.
1, and three others offered themselves as candidates.
This is the basis on which the validity of the appellants election was challenged by respondent No.
Amongst the witnesses examined by respondent No.
Since the appellant did number belong to the scheduled caste in question, he was number entitled to stand for election for the reserved seat in respect of the said Constituency.
The election in question was held in February, 1962 at this election the appellant, respondent No.
Respondent No.
The appellant was declared duly elected on the 26th February, 1962 since he had polled the highest number of votes.
