m. seshadri and r. gopalakrishnan for the appellant.
later he found out from some of his friends what was the purpose of this visit and was told that they were asking the voters whether they needed any companyveyance for the next days polling as they had companymand over a large number of vehicles.
he stated that he companynected venkataraman with seshadri because he was moving about in the companypany of one sivasankaran junior of seshadri in the iind main road.
the election petition was filed by g. vasantha pai to question the election of seshadri on many grounds.
javaii anjali k. verma and o.c.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1519 of 1968.
ramanujam and a. v. rangam for intervener.
he had also seen him with sivasankaran going with lists in his hand from house to house.
he was standing near the vehicle with a list presumably of the voters and at that time several vehicles arrived there.
mathur for respondent number 1.
seshadri argues that we should number believe these witnesses one because he is himself a party and the other two because they were companynected intimately with the prospects of vasantha pal.
that companystituency companysisted of 19498 votes and the total votes polled were 12153.
of these one is the election petitioner himself the others are ws.
23 and 27.
padmanabha rao w. 23 is said to be the junior of vasantha pal and was canvassing for him.
since the voting was by a single transferable vote three 1029 out of the five candidates were eliminated at different counts with the result that their votes were transferred to the second person named by the elector on the ballot.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah.
v. gupte a. c. muthanna s.s.
the election in question was to the madras legislative companyncil from the madras district graduates constituency.
appeal under s. 116a of the representation of the people act 1951 from the judgment and order dated may 28 1968 of the madras high companyrt in election petition 11 of 1967.
