Respondent No.
1 or that of his agents published such statements of facts Exts.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 2, 1960, of the Rajasthan High Court in D. E. Civil Misc.
1 denied all the allegations made by the appellant and companytended that the election petition filed by the appellant should be dismissed.
2 at the election.
1s election did number succeed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR.,
February 8.
The relevant portion in the pamphlet Ext.
2 by the said pamphlets were true or false.
1s election wag invalid inasmuch as he had practiced companyrupt practices at the said election.
Even, so, the High Court felt that the final companyclusion of the Tribunal was, on the whole, companyrect and need number be reversed.
That is how even the second ground made by the appellant disputing the validity of respondent No.
2 and so it held that the companyrupt practice alleged by the appellant against respondent No.
1, Lal Singh on several grounds.
1 procured or abetted or attempted to procure either by himself or by his agents or by other persons with his companynivance or that of his agents the reception of invalid votes and as a result of the said votes, the result of the Election had been materially affected The appellant stated in detail the manner in which the said invalid votes bad been procured.
3 Chhoga lal secured 569 votes.
It is on these two grounds that the appellant claimed a declaration that the election of respondent No.
It is true that the High Court was number satisfied with the approach adopted by the Tribunal in dealing with this part of the case and it thought that some of the reasons given by the Tribunal in support of its companyclusions were number satisfactory.
In regard to the other document Ext.
In the result, the election petition was dismissed.
6, the Tribunal was number satisfied that, it had been published by respondent No.
In regard to the second ground on which respondent No.
Against the said decision, the appellant preferred an appeal in the Rajasthan High Court.
It is against this order that the appellant has companye to this Court by Special leave.
3 had been published by the agent of respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
C. Mathur, for the respondent No.
J. This appeal by special leave arises out of an election petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of the election of respondent No.
1 and so was outside the purview of s. 100 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 43 of 1951 hereinafter called the Act .
3 6 which were false and which they either believed to be false or did number believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or companyduct of respondent No.2 which were likely to prejudice the prospect of respondent No.
According to the appellant, respondent No.
3 did number appear at all, while respondent No.
The result was that though the High Court differed from the Election Tribunal in regard to some of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the second ground, its ultimate companyclusion was the same as that of the Tribunal.
Thus both the Tribunal and the High Court have recorded findings against the appellant on the first part of his case.
S. Pathak, A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, S. N. Andley and P. Vohra, for the appellant.
1 and differing from the view taken by the Tribunal, the High Court has hold that the Publication of both the pamphlets was with companysent of respondent No.
The High Court bold that the said material allegations were false and it came to the companyclusion that they were calculated to effect prejudicially the prospects of the election of respondent No.2.
As a result of the election, respondent No.
1957, for the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the said companystituency.
2 Laxman Singh s o Maharawal Sir Bijey Singh secured 7261 votes and respondent No.
1 but number with his express companysent and in regard to Ext.
1s agent.
1, his agents and other persons with the companynivance of respondent No.
280 of 1961.
2 filed his written statement supporting the petition but he did number appear before the Tribunal at the hearing.
In regard to the second companytention raised by the appellant, the High Court has accepted the finding of the Tribunal about the publication of Ext.
1s election was challenged by appellant, companyld number succeed.
2 should be declared to have been validly elected.
1s election was challenged by the appellant, the Tribunal held that Ext.
On the pleadings of the parties, the Election Tribunal framed as many as 26 issues.
Having thus found that the two pamphlets had been published by the agent of respondent No.1 and with his companysent, the High Court preceded to examine the question as to whether the material allegations made against respondent No.
The appellant is an elector in the Chittorgarh Constituency and the election which led to the present petition was held in March.
He also claimed that respondent No.
6, the High Court has reversed the companyclusion of the Tribunal and hold that the said document had been published for the benefit of respondent No.
2 on the strength of the said two pamphlets under s. 123 4 of the act had number been proved.,
Respondent No.
The appellant further pleaded that respondent No.
1 was invalid.
He secured 7272 votes whereas respondent No.
The High Court companyfirmed the finding of the Tribunal on the first point in regard to the receipt of invalid votes.
1 of 1960.
1 was declared to have been duly elected on the 11th March, 1957.
Election Appeal, No.
The appeal preferred by the appellant was accordingly dismissed.
The appellants case was that respondent No.
