{"id":268353,"date":"1960-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960"},"modified":"2016-05-06T00:08:55","modified_gmt":"2016-05-05T18:38:55","slug":"brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960","title":{"rendered":"Brijendralal Gupta And Another vs Jwalaprasad And Others on 22 April, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Brijendralal Gupta And Another vs Jwalaprasad And Others on 22 April, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 1049, 1960 SCR (3) 650<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBRIJENDRALAL GUPTA AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJWALAPRASAD AND OTHERS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/04\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\n\nCITATION:\n 1960 AIR 1049\t\t  1960 SCR  (3) 650\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1972 SC 580\t (23)\n R\t    1975 SC1274\t (2)\n\n\nACT:\n       Election-Nomination,  rejection\tof-Non-mention\tof  age\t in\n       nomination  Paper-If defect of substantial  nature-Omission,\n       if   amounts  to\t defect-Scrutiny-When  enquiry\t necessary-\n       Electoral  Roll-Entry  regarding\t age  How  far\tconclusive-\n       Representation  of the People Act<\/a>, 1951 (43 of 1951) ss.\t 33<\/a>\n       and 36-Representation<\/a> of the People Act, 1950 (43 of  1950),\n       ss. 16<\/a> and 19<\/a>.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThirteen  candidates  filed  their  nomination\tpapers\t for\nelection to the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh.\t The\nnomination of U was rejected on the ground that he failed to\ngive  a\t declaration  as  to his  age  as  required  in\t the\nnomination  paper.   After  the\t poll  the  appellants\twere\ndeclared  duly elected.\t Thereupon one of  the\tunsuccessful\ncandidates  J  filed an election  petition  challenging\t the\nelection  of the appellants, inter alia, on the ground\tthat\nthe  nomination\t of  U had  been  improperly  rejected.\t The\nElection Tribunal dismissed the petition holding that U made\nno attempt before the returning officer to remedy the defect\nin  the nomination paper, that the defect could not  in\t law\nhave  been  remedied at the stage of the scrutiny  that\t the\ndefect was of a substantial character and that the rejection\nof the nomination was proper.  On appeal the High Court held\nthat at the time of the scrutiny U had offered to supply the\nomission but the returning officer had refused to allow\t him\nto  do\tso, that the returning officer was bound to  make  a\nsummary\t enquiry before rejecting the nomination,  that\t the\nnon-mention of age in the nomination paper was not a  defect\nof  a  substantial character and that the rejection  of\t the\nnomination was improper and consequently allowed the  appeal\nand set aside the election of the appellants:\n651\nHeld, that the omission to give the declaration as to age in\nthe  nomination paper was a defect of substantial  character\nwithin the meaning of s. 36(4)<\/a>, Representation of the People\nAct<\/a>,  1951, and the rejection of the nomination for such  an\nomission was\nproper.\nRattan Anmol Singh v. Atma Ram<\/a>, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 481, Pranlal\nThakorlal  Munshi  v.  lndubhai Bhailabhai  Amin,  (1952)  1\nE.L.R.\t182, Rup Lal v. jugaraj Singh, (1958) 5 E.L.R.\t484,\nBrij  Sundar Sharma v. Election Tribunal, Jaipur<\/a>, (1956)  12\nE.L.R. 216, Balasubyahmanyan v. Election Tribunal,  Vellore,\n(1953)\t7 E.L.R. 496 and Ramayan Shukla v.  Rajendra  Prasad\nSingh<\/a> (1958) 16 E.L.R. 491, referred to.\nDurga  Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh<\/a>,\t[1955]\tS.C.\n140 and Karnail Singh v. Election Tribunal Hissar, [1954] 10\nE.L.R. 189, distinguished.\nPt.   Charanjit\t Lal Ram Sarup v. Lohri\t Singh\tRam  Narain<\/a>,\nA.I.R. 1958 Punj. 433, disapproved.\nThe  word  \"  defect\" in S. 36(4)<\/a> included  an\tomission  to\nspecify\t the  details  prescribed in  the  nomination.\t The\ndistinction  drawn in English cases between an \" omission  \"\nand  \"\tinaccurate description\" depended upon  the  specific\nprovisions of the English statutes and did not obtain  under\nthe Indian Law.\nThe  Queen  v.\tTugwell, (1868) 3 Q.B. 704  and\t Baldwin  v.\nEllis, (1929) 1 K.B. 273, distinguished.\nCases failing under s. 36(2)<\/a> (b) must be distinguished\tfrom\nthose  falling\tunder s. 36(2)<\/a> (a).   Where  the  nomination\npaper did not comply with the provisions of s. 33<\/a> of the Act\nthe  case  fell\t under\ts.  36(2)  (b)\tand  the   defective\nnomination  had to be accepted or rejected according as\t the\ndefect\t was  of  an  unsubstantial  or\t of  a\t substantial\ncharacter.   In\t such a case it was not\t necessary  for\t the\nreturning officer to hold any enquiry.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
       CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 151 of 1960.
\n       Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated
\n       November\t 23,  1959,  of\t the  Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court,
\n       Jabalpur, in First Appeal No. 78 of 1959, arising out of the
\n       judgment\t and  order  dated May 12, 1959,  of  the  Election
\n       Tribunal, Raigarh, in Election Petition No. 76\/1957.
\n       G.   S. Pathak and G. C. Mathur, for the appellants.
\n       N.C. Chatterjee, S . K. Kapur, Y. S. Dharamadhikaree  and
\n       A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
       1960.  April 22.\t The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n       GAJENDRAGADKAR,\tJ.-Does\t the failure of a  candi-  date\t to
\n       specify\this age as required by the prescribed form  of\tthe
\n       nomination paper amount to a defect of a
\n       652<\/span>
\n       substantial  character under s. 36(4)<\/a> of the  Representation
\n       of the People Act, 43 of 1951 (hereinafter called the  Act)?
\n       That  is the point of law which arises for our  decision\t in
\n       the present appeal.  The said point arises in this way.\t On
\n       February\t 25,  1957,  polling  took  place  at  the  General
\n       Election to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the
\n       Mamendragarh    Double\tMember\t Constituency.\t   Thirteen
\n       candidates  had offered themselves for election\teither\tfor
\n       the general or the reserved seat at the said election.\tMr.
\n       Brijendralal  Gupta, appellant I and Thakur Raghubir  Singh,
\n       appellant 2, were the Congress candidates while\trespondents
\n       1  and  7  had been adopted by the  Praja  Socialist  Party,
\n       respondent  4  and  one Sadhuram by the Jan  Sangh  and\tthe
\n       remaining   candidates  had  filed  their   nominations\t as
\n       independent  candidates.\t Udebhan Tiwari, respondent 5,\tbad
\n       omitted\tto  make the declaration regarding his age  in\this
\n       nomination paper.  This defect was discovered at the time of
\n       the  scrutiny of the nomination papers on February 1,  1957,
\n       and  as\ta result his nomination paper was rejected  by\tthe
\n       returning  officer.  Subsequently respondent 6 withdrew\this
\n       candidature with the result that eleven candidates took part
\n       in the contest.\tAfter the polling took place and the  votes
\n       secured by the contesting candidates were counted appellants
\n       1  and 2 were declared duly elected to the General  and\tthe
\n       Reserved\t   seat\t  respectively.\t  Thereupon    Jwalaprasad,
\n       respondent 1, filed an election petition under s. 81<\/a> of\tthe
\n       Act  challenging the election of the appellants\ton  several
\n       grounds, one of which was that the nomination of\t respondent
\n       5 had been improperly rejected.\tHe, therefore, played  that
\n       the  election of the appellants should be declared void\tand
\n       he  himself should be declared as having been duly  elected.
\n       This  election  petition\t was made over\tfor  trial  to\tthe
\n       Election Tribunal, Raigarh.\n<\/p>\n
       On  the\tcontentions  raised by the parties  before  it\tthe
\n       Election\t Tribunal framed as many as 49 issues; but  in\tthe
\n       present\tappeal\twe are concerned with only  three  of  them
\n       which  related  to  the\trejection  of  the  nomination\t of
\n       respondent  5.  These  three issues  were  (1)  whether\tthe
\n       nomination  paper  of respondent 5 was  improperly  rejected
\n       because of the omission to
\n       653<\/span>
\n       fill in the age in the prescribed column, (2) whether at the
\n       time of the scrutiny respondent 5 was personally present and
\n       brought to the notice of the returning officer that his\tage
\n       was above 25 and the omission is simply accidental, and\t(3)
\n       if  so, whether the rejection of the said  nomination  paper
\n       has  rendered  the whole election void ab  initio  under\t s.
\n       100(1)(c)<\/a>  of the Act.  The Tribunal held that respondent  5
\n       did  not\t make  any attempt to rectify  the  defect  in\tthe
\n       nomination  paper, that the returning officer could  not\t in
\n       law  have allowed respondent 5 to remedy the said defect\t at
\n       the  stage of the scrutiny of the nomination, and  that\tthe
\n       error  in  the  nomination was a\t defect\t of  a\tsubstantial
\n       character  with\tthe  result  that  the\trejection  of\tthe
\n       nomination  paper was according to the Tribunal proper.\t In
\n       accordance  with these findings the Tribunal  dismissed\tthe
\n       election petition.\n<\/p>\n
       Respondent  1 then preferred an appeal against the  decision
\n       of  the Tribunal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh\t at
\n       Jabalpur\t under\ts.  116A of the Act<\/a>.  The  High\t Court\thas
\n       allowed the appeal; it has held that respondent 5 had at the
\n       time of the scrutiny offered to supply the omission but\tthe
\n       returning  officer refused to allow him to do so,  that\tthe
\n       returning officer was bound to make a summary enquiry before
\n       rejecting respondent 5’s nomination paper, and that the non-
\n       mention of the age in the nomination paper was not a  defect
\n       of  a substantial character.  In consequence,  according\t to
\n       the  High Court, the rejection of respondent 5’s\t nomination
\n       paper was improper; that is why the High Court set aside the
\n       election\t of the appellants under s. 100(1)(c)<\/a> of  the  Act.
\n       It  is  against\tthis decision of the High  Court  that\tthe
\n       appellants have come to this Court by special leave.
\n       The  learned counsel for the appellants wanted to  challenge
\n       the  correctness of the finding recorded by the\tHigh  Court
\n       that  respondent\t 5  offered to correct the  defect  in\this
\n       nomination  paper  by supplying evidence about his  age\tand
\n       that  the  returning  officer had refused  to  give  him\t an
\n       opportunity to do so.  It is true that on this question\tthe
\n       Tribunal had found in favour of the appellants; but, in\tour
\n       opinion,\t it  was  open to the High Court  to  consider\tthe
\n       correctness or the
\n       85<\/span>
\n       654<\/span>
\n       propriety of the said finding because the jurisdiction a\t of
\n       the  High Court under s. 116A<\/a> of the Act is wide enough\tand
\n       is  not\tconfined to questions of law.  It  has\tbeen  urged
\n       before us that the decision on this Darrow question of  fact
\n       depends\tupon the appreciation of oral evidence led  by\tthe
\n       parties,\t and it was suggested that the High Court  was\tnot
\n       justified in interfering with the conclusion of the Tribunal
\n       on  that point.\tWe are not impressed by this argument.\t We
\n       would, therefore, deal with the present appeal on the  basis
\n       that respondent 5 attempted to rectify the omission but\twas
\n       not  allowed to do so by the returning officer.\t Therefore,
\n       if  the defect in the nomination paper of respondent  5\twas
\n       not  of\ta substantial character the High  Court’s  decision
\n       would be right on the other hand, if the said defect is of a
\n       substantial  character then the rejection of respondent\t5’s
\n       nomination   paper  would  be  proper  and  the\tfact   that
\n       respondent  5 was not allowed an opportunity to rectify\tthe
\n       said omission would make no difference in law.  That is\thow
\n       the  only point which calls for our decision is whether\tthe
\n       omission, in question is a substantial defect under 36(4) of
\n       the Act.\n<\/p>\n
       Before dealing with this question it is relevant to refer to
\n       ss.  33<\/a>,\t 34<\/a> and read s. 36<\/a>.  Section 33<\/a>\t provides  for\tthe
\n       presentation  of\t the nomination paper  and  prescribes\tthe
\n       requirements  for  a  valid nomination.\t Section  33(1)<\/a>\t is
\n       important  for our purpose.  It provides that on\t or  before
\n       the  date appointed under el. (a) of IS. 30  each  candidate
\n       shall,  either  in person or by his  proposer,  between\tthe
\n       hours of eleven o’clock in the forenoon and three o’clock in
\n       the afternoon deliver to the returning officer at the  place
\n       specified in this behalf in the notice issued under s. 31<\/a>  a
\n       nomination paper completed in the prescribed form and signed
\n       by  the candidate and by an elector of the  constituency\t as
\n       proposer.   Section 33(2)<\/a> lays down that a  candidate  shall
\n       not  be\tdeemed\tto  be qualified to be\tchosen\tto  fill  a
\n       reserved\t seat  unless  his  nomination\tpaper  contains\t  a
\n       declaration  prescribed by it.  Sub-section (3)\tdeals  with
\n       the case of a candidate who, having held any office referred
\n       to  in el. (f) of s. 71<\/a>, hag been dismissed and a period\t of
\n       five years has not elapsed since the
\n       655<\/span>
\n       dismissal, and lays down that the nomination paper of such a
\n       person  shall be accompanied by a certificate as\t specified.
\n       Sub-section  (4)\t requires  that on the\tpresentation  of  a
\n       nomination paper the returning officer shall satisfy himself
\n       that  the names and electoral roll numbers of the  candidate
\n       and his proposer as entered in the nomination paper are\tthe
\n       same  as those entered in the electoral rolls.  The  proviso
\n       to this subsection requires the returning officer to  permit
\n       any  clerical or technical error in the nomination paper\t in
\n       regard  to  the said names or numbers to be  corrected,\tand
\n       where  necessary,  it  authorises him  to  direct  that\tany
\n       clerical\t or  printing  error in the  said  entry  shall\t be
\n       overlooked.   We\t are not concerned with the  remaining\ttwo
\n       sub-sections  of s. 33<\/a>.\tSection 34<\/a> deals with deposits\tand
\n       provides\t that  a  candidate shall not  deemed  to  be  duly
\n       nominated  for  election\t from  a  constituency\tunless\t he
\n       deposits or causes to be deposited the amounts as prescribed
\n       in  cls.\t (a),  (b)  and (c).  Section  36<\/a>  deals  with\tthe
\n       scrutiny of nomination&, authorises the returning officer to
\n       hold  an enquiry,, ,prescribes the procedure to be  followed
\n       by  him in holding such an enquiry, required him to  endorse
\n       his  decisions on the points raised in the scrutiny, and\t to
\n       prepare\ta list of validly nominated candidates that  is\t to
\n       say,  whose nominations have been found valid, and to  affix
\n       it to his notice board.\tSection 36(1)<\/a> provides that on\tthe
\n       date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations under s. 30<\/a>,\tthe
\n       candidates and the other persons specified in it may  attend
\n       at such time and place as the returning officer may appoint,
\n       and  the\t returning officer shall give them  all\t reasonable
\n       facilities  for\texamining  the\tnomination  papers  of\tall
\n       candidates which have been delivered within the time and\t in
\n       the  manner laid down in s. 33<\/a>.\tSub-section (2) deals  with
\n       the  examination\t of  nomination\t papers\t by  the  returning
\n       officer, and it provides that the said officer shall  decide
\n       all objections which may be made to any nomination, and may,
\n       either  on  such objection or on his own motion\tafter  such
\n       summary enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject\tany
\n       nomination  on  any of the-following grounds,-(a)  that\tthe
\n       candidate  either  is not qualified or is  disqualified\tfor
\n       being chosen to till
\n       656<\/span>
\n       the  seat under any of the following provisions that may\t be
\n       applicable,  viz., Arts. 84, 102, 173 and 19 1, and Part\t 11
\n       of  this\t Act, (b) that there has been a failure\t to  comply
\n       with  any of the provisions of section 33<\/a> or section 34<\/a>,\t or\n<\/p>\n
       (c)  that the signature of the candidate or the proposer\t on
\n       the  nomination paper is not genuine.  Sub-section (4)  lays
\n       down  that  the\treturning  officer  shall  not\treject\tany
\n       nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of
\n       a  substantial  character.  Sub-section (5)  prescribes\tthe
\n       procedure for the scrutiny, and subs. (6) requires that\tthe
\n       returning officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his
\n       decision\t accepting  or rejecting the same and  in  case\t of
\n       rejection  he shall record in writing a brief  statement\t of
\n       his  reasons for such rejection.\t Sub-section  (7)  provides
\n       that for the purpose of this section a certified copy of\t an
\n       entry in the electoral roll for the time being in force of a
\n       constituency  shall be conclusive evidence of the fact  that
\n       the person referred to in that entry is an elector for  that
\n       constituency  unless  it is proved that he is subject  to  a
\n       disqualification mentioned in s. 16<\/a> of the Representation of
\n       the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950).  Sub’section (8) requires
\n       the returning officer to prepare a list of validly nominated
\n       candidates and affix it to his notice board.
\n       It is clear that s. 33<\/a> requires that a nomination paper must
\n       be  completed  in  the prescribed form  and  signed  by\tthe
\n       candidate  and  by  the\telector\t of  the  constituency\t as
\n       proposer.   The form prescribed in that behalf is  Form\tNo.
\n       2B.   The  relevant  portion of the  prescribed\tform  reads
\n       thus:-\n<\/p>\n
       Form 2B.\n<\/p>\n
       Nomination Paper
\n       (See rule 4)
\n       Election to the Legislative Assembly of………(State)
\n       (To be filled in by the proposer)
\n       I hereby nominate…………….as a candidate for election
\n       from the………………  Assembly Constituency.\n<\/p>\n
       1.   Full name of proposer………………\n<\/p>\n
       2.   Electoral roll number of proposer…………\n<\/p>\n
       3.   Name of candidate’s ++father\/husband…………..\n<\/p>\n
       4.   Full postal address of candidate………..\n<\/p>\n
       5.   Electoral roll number of candidate………..\n<\/p>\n
       Date ……\t\t\t Signature of proposer.\n<\/p>\n
657<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  (To be filled by the candidate)
\n1, the above-mentioned candidate, assent to this  nomination
\nand hereby declare-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  that I have completed…………. years of age;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  that  the\tsymbols\t I  have  chosen  are  in  order  of
\npreference\n<\/p>\n
(i)   ………………………….\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  ………………………….\tand\n<\/p>\n
(iii) ………………………….\n<\/p>\n
Date\t     Signature of candidate.\n<\/p>\n
\tStrike out one of the alternatives as necessary.
\nIt  is common ground that the first part of  the  nomination
\npaper which has to be filled in by the proposer was in order
\nand  the second part was duly ‘signed by the  candidate\t but
\nfailed to declare his age as prescribed by (a) above.\tWhen
\nthe returning officer noticed this omission he made an order
\nrejecting respondent 5’S nomination.  The brief statement of
\nreasons which the returning officer has recorded shows\tthat
\nhe held that the failure of respondent 5 to declare his\t age
\ncannot be treated as clerical or technical error, but is  of
\na  substantial\tnature\tsince  declaration  as\tto  age\t was
\nnecessary  in order to entitle a candidate to  be  qualified
\nunder  Art. 173<\/a> of the Constitution.  The returning  officer
\nhas  also  noted  that he took the objection  suo  moto\t and
\nrejected the nomination paper of respondent 5. Thus there is
\nno  doubt  that respondent 5’s omitted to  specify  his\t age
\nbefore he signed his nomination paper and in that sense\t his
\nnomination  paper has not been completed in  the  prescribed
\nform.  The question which arises for our decision is whether
\nrespondent   5’s  omission  to\tspecify\t his  age   in\t his
\nnomination paper amounts to a defect, and if yes,whether  it
\nis a defect of a substantial character under s.\t  36(4)<\/a>\t  of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
On  behalf of the appellants it has been conceded before  us
\nthat  the  omission  in\t question  undoubtedly\t constitutes
\nfailure to comply with the provisions of A.  33,  and so  it
\nattracts the provisions of s. 36(2)(b)<\/a> of the Act, but it is
\nurged  that  the said omission does not amount to  a  defect
\nunder s. 36(4)<\/a> much less a defect which is of a\t substantial
\ncharacter.  The argument is
\n658<\/span>
\nthat s. 36(4)<\/a> can apply only to such cases of non-compliance
\nwith  s. 33<\/a> which can be said to amount to defects  and\t not
\nothers,\t and since the omission in question is not a  defect
\nthere is no scope for invoking the provisions of that,\tsub-
\nsection.   In  support of this argument\t reliance  has\tbeen
\nplaced\ton two English decisions.  In The Queen\t v.  Tugwell
\n(1)  Cockburn, C. J., held that the 9 votes  whose  validity
\nwas  impeached\thad to be struck off because  they  had\t not
\ncomplied with s. 32 of the Municipal Corporation Act (5 &  6
\nWm.  4,\t c. 76) and so s. 142<\/a> could not cure  their  defect.
\nThe  voting papers in question contained the Christian\tname
\nand the surname of the candidate and his place of abode\t and
\nnothing\t more, whereas s. 32<\/a> required that they should\talso
\ncontain\t the description of the candidate.  In other  words,
\nthere  was  a  total  omission\tto  supply  the\t description
\nrequired  by  s. 32<\/a>.  It was, however, urged that  the\tsaid
\nomission should be treated as inaccurate description, and so
\nthe validity of the impugned votes should be sustained under
\ns.  142\t which\tprovides, inter\t alia,\tthat  no  inaccurate
\ndescription of any person shall hinder the full operation of
\nthe  Act  in  respect  of  such\t person\t provided  that\t the
\ndescription  of\t such  person  is such\tas  to\tbe  commonly
\nunderstood.  Cockburn, C. J., held that in the cases of\t the
\n9  votes  in  question\tthey  were  not\t dealing  with\t the
\ninaccurate  description but a total omission of\t description
\nwhich is one of the things required by s. 32<\/a>, and so s.\t 142<\/a>
\nwas  inapplicable.  It appears that Lush,J.,  and  Hannen,J.
\nagreed\twith the conclusion of the Chief Justice  with\tsome
\nhesitation.   To the same effect is the decision in  Baldwin
\nv.  Ellis  (2). In that case the omission to  state  in\t the
\nnomination paper the name of the parish for which the person
\nnominated  was qualified as a local government\telector\t was
\nheld to be non compliance with the requirements of rule 4 of
\nthe  Rural  District Councillors Election Order,  1898,\t and
\nthat  the said omission could not be cured by s. 13  of\t the
\nBallot Act of 1872 since that section applied only to  cases
\nwhere  there had been a wrongful admission of  a  nomination
\npaper  and  not to those where a nomination paper  had\tbeen
\nrejected.  It was also
\n(1) (1868) 3 Q.B 704
\n(2) (1929) 1 K.B 273.\n<\/p>\n
650<\/span><\/p>\n
held  that  the omission in question cannot  be\t treated  as
\ninaccurate description of the person nominate within rule 13
\nof the Order of 1898 but was a clear non-compliance with the
\nrequirements of rule 4 of that Order and as such it was\t not
\ncured  by rule 33.  It would thus be seen that in  both\t the
\ndecisions the question as to whether the particular omission
\namounted  to  an inaccurate description was decided  in\t the
\nlight of the specific provision of the statute, and so\tthey
\ncannot\tsustain\t the  broad argument that  in  no  case\t can
\nomission  be treated as a defect.  We may also\tincidentally
\npoint out that Halsbury has read these decisions in the same
\nway (3).\n<\/p>\n
On  the\t other\thand the dictionary meaning of\tthe  word  ”
\ndefect”\t is  “lack  or absence\tof  something  essential  to
\ncompleteness”, and in that sense omission to specify the age
\ncall  and  would  be treated as a  defect  under  s.  36(4)<\/a>.
\nDefect\talso means ” a flaw or a fault or an  imperfection”;
\nbut whether or not it includes an omission must\t necessarily
\ndepend\tupon the context in which the word is used.  In\t our
\nopinion,   having  regard  to  the  context  it\t  would\t  be
\nunreasonable to hold that the word ” defect ” under s. 36(4)<\/a>
\nexcludes  all  cases  of omission  to  specify\tthe  details
\nprescribed by the statute in the nomination paper.  We\tmust
\naccordingly   reject  the  appellants’\targument  that\t the
\nomission in question is not a defect under s. 36(4)<\/a>.
\nThe  next question which we must consider is whether in\t the
\ncase of such an omission it was obligatory on the  returning
\nofficer\t to hold an enquiry under s. 36(2)<\/a> of the Act.\t The
\nHigh Court has held that the returning officer ought to have
\nheld  an  enquiry under s. 36(2)(a)<\/a>  and  satisfied  himself
\nwhether\t or not respondent 5 was eligible to stand  for\t the
\nelection.   In\tour opinion the High Court was in  error  in
\ncoming\tto  this  conclusion.  If the  nomination  paper  of
\nrespondent 5 did not comply with the provisions of s. 33<\/a> the
\ncase  fell squarely under s. 36(2)(b)<\/a> and the only  question
\nwhich can arise in such a case is whether or not the  defect
\narising from the failure to comply with the provisions of s.
\n33<\/a>  is of a substantial character or not.  If the defect  is
\nnot of a substantial
\n(3)  Halsbury’s\t ‘Laws\tof  England”,  Vol.  14,  3rd\tEd.,
\nparagraphs foot-note (a) on p. 95.\n<\/p>\n
660<\/span><\/p>\n
character  the\treturning  officer  shall  not\treject\t the
\nnomination  paper on the ground of the said defect;  if,  on
\nthe other hand, the defect is of a substantial character the
\nreturning officer has to reject the nomination paper on\t the
\nground\tof  the\t said  defect, That is\tthe  effect  of\t the
\nprovisions of s. 36(2)(b)<\/a> and (4) read together.  An enquiry
\nwhich is necessary under s. 36(2)(a)<\/a> may and can be held for
\ninstance  in cases where the nomination paper shows the\t age
\nof  the\t candidate as above 25, but an\tobjection  has\tbeen
\nraised-that  in fact he is below 25 and as such\t incompetent
\nto stand for election under Art. 173<\/a> of the Constitution; in
\nother  words, the impugned nomination has complied with\t the
\nprovisions  of\ts.  33 and as such does Dot  fall  under  s.
\n36(2)(b)<\/a> at all, nevertheless the validity of the nomination
\ncan  be challenged on the ground that, in fact Art.  173<\/a>  is
\nnot  complied with.  Cases falling under this class must  be
\ndistinguished-from cases falling under s. 36(2)(b)<\/a>.  In\t the
\nlatter\tclass  of  cases  the failure  to  comply  with\t the
\nprovisions of s. 33<\/a> being established there is no scope\t for
\nany  enquiry  under  s. 36(2)<\/a> (a).  Once  the  alleged\tnon-
\ncompliance  is proved, the defective nomination falls to  be
\naccepted  or  rejected\taccording as the  defect  is  of  an
\nunsubstantial or of a substantial character.  Therefore,  it
\nis  not right to hold that even after the returning  officer
\nwas  satisfied that the omission to specify his\t age  showed
\nthat  the nomination paper of respondent 5 had not  complied
\nwith the provisions of s.     33<\/a>, he should still have\theld
\nan enquiry under s. 36(2)<\/a>  (a).\t  Non- compliance  with\t the
\nprovisions of s.    33<\/a> itself would justify the rejection of
\nthe  nomination\t paper provided of course  that\t the  defect
\narising\t from  the  non-compliance  in\tquestion  is  of   a
\nsubstantial character.\n<\/p>\n
That  takes us to the question as to whether the failure  to
\nspecify the age in the nomination paper amounts to a  defect
\nof a substantial character under s. 36(4)<\/a> or not.  There  is
\nlittle\tdoubt that the age of the candidate is as  important
\nas  his identity, and in requiring the candidate to  specify
\nhis age the prescribed form has given a place of  importance
\nto the declaration about the candidate’s age.  Just as the
\n661<\/span>
\nnomination  paper must show the full name of  the  candidate
\nand  his electoral roll number, and just as  the  nomination
\npaper  must  be\t duly signed by the candidate,\tso  must  it
\ncontain the declaration by the candidate about his age.\t  It
\nis  significant\t that  the statement about the\tage  of\t the
\ncandidate is required to be made by the candidate above\t his
\nsignature and is substantially treated as his declaration in
\nthat  behalf.  That being the requirement of the  prescribed
\nnomination form it is difficult to hold that the failure  to
\nspecify the age does not amount to a defect of a substantial
\ncharacter.   The  prima facie eligibility of the  person  to
\nstand  as  a candidate which depends under Art. 173<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution, inter alia, on his having completed the age of
\n25  years  is an important matter, and it is in\t respect  of
\nsuch  an important matter that the prescribed form  requires
\nthe candidate to make the declaration.\tIt would, we  think,
\nbe unreasonable to hold that the failure to make a  declara-
\ntion  on  such\tan  important  matter  is  a  defect  of  an
\nunsubstantial character.  In this connection, it is relevant
\nto refer to the fact that the declaration as to the  symbols
\nwhich\tthe   prescribed  form\tof  the\t  nomination   paper
\nrequires  the candidate to make is by the proviso to rule  5
\ngiven a subsidiary place.  The proviso to rule 5 shows\tthat
\nany  non-compliance with the provisions of sub-rule  (2)  of
\nrule  5 shall not be deemed to be a defect of a\t substantial
\ncharacter within the meaning of s. 36<\/a>, sub-s. (4).  In other
\nwords, this proviso seems to suggest that, according to\t the
\nrule  making authority, failure to comply with the  require-
\nments as to the declaration of symbols as specified in\trule
\n5,  sub-rule (2), would have been treated as a defect, of  a
\nsubstantial  character;\t that is why the  proviso  expressly
\nprovides to the contrary.  This would incidentally show that
\nthe  failure  to specify the age can. not be  treated  as  a
\ndefect of an unsubstantial character.\n<\/p>\n
On  behalf  of the respondents it has, however,\t been  urged
\nbefore us that the returning officer should not be astute to
\nreject the nomination papers on technical grounds, and\tthat
\nin the present case the returning officer should have looked
\nat the electoral roll and satisfied himself that  respondent
\n5 was duly qualified 86
\n662<\/span>
\nto stand for the election.  His age is 48 and it was   shown
\nin  the\t electoral  roll against his name.  It\twas  thus  a
\nsimple matter of looking at the electoral roll be  satisfied
\nthat the omission to specify the age in the nomination\tform
\nwas  no more than a technical breach of the requirements  of
\ns.  33.\t We are not impressed by this argument.\t As we\thave
\nalready\t observed,  in cases of non-compliance\twith  s.  33<\/a>
\nwhich attract the provisions of s. 36(2)(b)<\/a>, there would  be
\nno occasion to hold an enquiry under s. 36(2)(a)<\/a>.  The\tonly
\npoint to consider in such cases would be whether the defects
\nin question are substantial or not; and so the argument that
\nthe returning officer could have easily verified the age  of
\nrespondent 5 is not really material in construing s. 36(4)<\/a>.
\nIn this connection it is relevant to consider the effect  of
\nthe  presumption which is raised under s. 36(7)<\/a> of  the\t Act
\nand its effect.\t As we have already noticed, under s.  36(7)<\/a>
\na certified copy of the entry in the electoral roll shall be
\nconclusive evidence of the fact that the person referred  to
\nin  that entry is an elector for that constituency ; but  it
\nmust  be remembered that this presumption is raised for\t the
\npurposes of this section and it is made expressly subject to
\nthe  last  clause of this subsection, that is  to  say,\t the
\npresumption can arise unless it is proved that the person in
\nquestion  is  subject to any of the  disqualifications\tmen-
\ntioned\tin  s.\t16<\/a>  of the Act of  1950.   The\tuse  of\t the
\nadjective  ”  conclusive ” which qualifies”  evidence  ”  is
\ntechnically  inappropriate because the\tpresumption  arising
\nfrom  the  production of the certified copy is by  no  means
\nconclusive.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\talso significant that in regard\t to  the  conclusive
\ncharacter of the relevant evidence the material provision as
\nit stood originally has been subsequently amended by Act  27
\nof  1956.   Originally the provision was that  the  relevant
\nentry  shall  be  conclusive evidence of the  right  of\t any
\nelector\t named\tin that entry to stand for  election  or  to
\nsubscribe  the\tnomination paper as the case  may  be.\t The
\nLegislature   apparently   thought  that   the\t presumption
\nauthorised  by these words was unduly wide, and so,  by\t the
\namendment, the prima facie and rebuttable presumption is now
\nlimited
\n\t\t\t    663<\/span>
\nto the capacity of the person concerned to be treated as  an
\nelector\t and nothing more, and that too unless it is  proved
\nthat  he suffers from any disqualification’ mentioned in  s.\n<\/p>\n
16.   Section  16<\/a>  to which reference  has  thus  been\tmade
\nprescribes   disqualifications\t for  registration   in\t  an
\nelectoral roll under three heads,-(a) that the person is not
\na  citizen  of\tIndia, (b) that he is of  unsound  mind\t and
\nstands so declared by a competent court, or (c) is  for\t the
\ntime being disqualified from voting under the provisions  of
\nany law relating to corrupt and illegal practices and  other
\noffences in connection with elections.\tThus the position is
\nthat  the certified copy of the relevant entry\twould  prima
\nfacie  show that the person concerned is not subject to\t any
\nof   the  said\tdisqualifications,  but\t this  prima   facie
\npresumption can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary.
\nThere  is  yet\tanother\t aspect\t of  this  matter  to  which
\nreference  may\tbe made.  The rebuttable  presumption  which
\narises\tunder  s. 36(7)<\/a> merely refers to the status  of\t the
\nperson\tconcerned as an elector.  Let us consider what\tthis
\npresumption means.  An elector under s. 2<\/a>, sub-s.1, (e),  of
\nthe Act in relation to a constituency means ” a person whose
\nname  is entered in the electoral roll of that\tconstituency
\nfor the time being in force and who is not subject to any of
\nthe  disqualifications\tmentioned  in s. 16<\/a> of\tthe  Act  of
\n1950″.\n<\/p>\n
That  takes us to the conditions prescribed by s. 19<\/a> of\t the
\nAct of 1950 for registration in the electoral roll.  Section
\n19<\/a> provides that subject to the foregoing provisions of Part
\nIII of the said Act every person who, on the qualifying date\n<\/p>\n
(a) is not less than 21 years of age, and (b) is  ordinarily
\nresident  is  a\t constituency,\tshall  be  entitled  to\t  be
\nregistered  in\tthe electoral roll  for\t that  constituency.
\nThus when a presumption is raised under s. 36(7)<\/a> it may mean
\nprima  facie that the person concerned is not less  than  21
\nyears\tof   age  and  is  ordinarily\tresident   in\tthat
\nconstituency;  but for the validity of the nomination  paper
\nit  has\t to be proved that the candidate  has  completed  25
\nyears of age.  Art. 173<\/a> of the Constitution which prescribes
\nthe  qualification  for\t membership  of\t State\t Legislature
\nprovides
\n664<\/span>
\nthat  a person shall not be qualified in that behalf  unless
\nhe (a) is a citizen of India, (b) is, in the case of a\tseat
\nin the Legislative Assembly, not less than 25 years of\tage,
\nand  (c)  possesses  such other\t qualifications\t as  may  be
\nprescribed  in\tthat  behalf by or under  any  law  made  by
\nParliament.   Confining ourselves to the  requirement  about
\nage it is obvious that the presumption raised under s. 36(7)<\/a>
\nwould  not be enough to justify the plea about\tvalidity  of
\nthe nomination paper because the said presumption only tends
\nto show that the person concerned has completed 21 years  of
\nage.It\tis clear that in regard to persons between 21 to  25
\nyears  of  age\ttheir  names  would  be\t registered  in\t the
\nelectoral  and\tso  they  would\t be  electors  if  otherwise
\nqualified  and yet they would not be entitled to  stand\t for
\nelection  to  the State Legislature.  Thus it would  not  be
\ncorrect to assume that a reference to the certified copy  of
\nthe electoral roll would in every case decisively show\tthat
\nthe  age of the candidate satisfied the test  prescribed  by
\nArt.   173<\/a>  of\tthe  Constitution;  in\tother\twords,\t the
\nrequirement  about  the\t completion of 25 years\t of  age  is
\noutside the presumption under s. 36(7)<\/a>, and that must be the
\nreason why the prescribed nomination form requires that\t the
\ncandidate  in signing the said form must make a\t declaration
\nabout  his age.\t This consideration supports our  conclusion
\nthat the declaration about the age is a matter of importance
\nand  failure to comply with the said requirement  cannot  be
\ntreated as a defect of an unsubstantial character.
\nIt now remains to consider some of the decisions which\twere
\ncited before us by the learned counsel for both the parties.
\nIn  Rattan  Anmol Singh v. Atma Ram<\/a>(1) this Court  has\theld
\nthat  the attestation required in the case of proposers\t and
\nseconders  who\tare not able to write their names is  not  a
\ntechnical  or  unsubstantial matter, and so the\t failure  to
\ncomply with the said requirement would amount to a defect of
\na  substantial character.  The appellants contend, and\twith
\nsome force, that this decision supports their case that like
\nthe  attestation  required  in the  case  of  an  illiterate
\nproposer or seconder the declaration as to the
\n(1)  [1955] 1 S.C.R 481,
\n665<\/span>
\nage of the candidate is a matter of substantial\t importance,
\nand failure to comply with the requirement of the prescribed
\nform  in that behalf cannot be treated as a defect which  is
\nnot of a substantial character.\t In Pranlal Thakorlal Munshi
\nv.  Indubhai  Bhailabhai Amin (1),  the\t Election  Tribunal,
\nBaroda,\t has  held  that the omission by  the  candidate  to
\nmention\t his  age in the nomination paper is a defect  of  a
\nsubstantial character and that his nomination paper had been
\nproperly  rejected  on that account.   The  appellants\thave
\nnaturally relied on this decision in support of their  case.
\nThe  appellants have then referred us to  certain  decisions
\nwhere  the  effect of the failure to specify  the  electoral
\nroll number or other particulars has been considered, and it
\nhas  been  held that the failure in question  amounts  to  a
\nsubstantial defect under s. 36(4)<\/a> of the Act. (Vide: Rup Lal
\nv.  Jugraj  Singh<\/a>  (2  ); Brij\tSundar\tSharma\tv.  Election
\nTribunal<\/a>,   Jaipur  (3\t);  Balasubrahmanyan   v.   Election
\nTribunal<\/a>, Vellore (4); and Ramayan Shukla v. Rajendra Prasad
\nSingh<\/a>  (5).  By parity of reasoning the\t appellants  contend
\nthat  the  failure  to\tmention the  age  is  undoubtedly  a
\nsubstantial  defect.  It is unnecessary for us\tto  consider
\nthe merits of these decisions.\n<\/p>\n
On  the\t other\thand  the respondents  have  relied  on\t the
\ndecision of this Court in the case of Durga Shankar Mehta v.
\nThakur\tRaghuraj  Singh<\/a>\t (6).  Indeed it  appears  from\t the
\njudgment  of the High Court under appeal that in  coming  to
\nits  decision  the  High Court\twas  influenced\t by  certain
\nobservations  made  by\tMukherjea, J., as he  then  was,  in
\ndealing\t with the case of Durga Shankar (6).  In  that\tcase
\nthe  validity of the election of Vasant Rao,  respondent  2,
\nwas  challenged before the Election Tribunal on\t the  ground
\nthat he was not eligible to stand for election since at\t all
\nmaterial  times he was under 25 years of age.  It was,\thow-
\never, clear that no objection was taken before the returning
\nofficer in respect of the nomination paper of respondent  2,
\nand the said nomination paper had  been\t    accepted\t  by
\nthere turning officer. The question
\n(1) (1952) 1 E.L.R. 182.(2) (1958) 15 E.L.R 484.
\n(3) (1956) 12 E.L.R. 216.(4) (1953) 7 E.L.R. 496.
\n(5) (1958) 16 E.L.R. 491.(6) [1955] S.C.R. 267.\n<\/p>\n
666<\/span><\/p>\n
which\twas  raised  before  this  Court  was  whether\t the
\nacceptance of respondent 2’s nomination paper could be\tsaid
\nto  be\timproper, and this Court held  that  the  acceptance
\nwould  have been improper if the want of  qualification\t was
\napparent on the electoral roll itself or on the face of\t the
\nnomination  paper and the returning officer overlooked\tthat
\ndefect or if any objection was raised and enquiry made as to
\nthe  absence  of  qualification in  the\t candidate  and\t the
\nreturning  officer  came  to the  wrong\t conclusion  on\t the
\nmaterials placed before him.  Since neither of these  things
\nhad  happened  in  that\t case,\tthe  Court  held  that\t the
\nacceptance  must be deemed to be a proper acceptance.\tEven
\nso  it\twas  observed that the validity\t of  respondent\t 2’s
\nelection could be challenged under s. 100(2)(c)<\/a> of the\tAct.
\nWith  that  aspect  of\tthe  matter  we\t are,  however,\t not
\nconcerned  in  the present appeal.  It would thus  be  clear
\nthat  in  the case of Durga Shankar (1) this  Court  had  no
\noccasion to consider the scope and effect of s. 36(2Xb)<\/a>\t and
\n(4)  of the Act at all, and so the observations made in\t the
\njudgment   on  which  reliance\thad  been  placed   by\t the
\nrespondents in support of their plea that an enquiry  should
\nhave  been held in the present case do not really  help\t us.
\nThe  said  observations must, with respect, be read  in\t the
\ncontext of the dispute which was raised before this Court in
\nthat  case.   The  respondents have  also  relied  upon\t the
\ndecision of this Court in Pratap Singh v. Shri Krishna Gupta<\/a>
\n(2).   In  that case this Court has no doubt  observed\tthat
\ncourts should not adopt a technical attitude in dealing with
\nelection  matters and that ” it is the substance  that\tmust
\ncount and it must take precedence over mere form  ;  but  in
\nappreciating   the  effect  of\tthese  observations  it\t  is
\nnecessary to bear in mind the points which   arose\t for
\ndecision in that case.\tIt was the failure of the  candidate
\nto  mention his occupation as required by rule 9  (1)(i)  on
\nwhich  the validity of his nomination was impeached, and  in
\ndealing\t with  that  point this Court had  to  consider\t the
\neffect of s. 23 of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 2
\nof 1922, which provided that anything done or any proceeding
\ntaken under the said Act shall not be questioned on account
\n(1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 267
\n(2) A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 140, 141,
\n667<\/span>
\nof  any defect or irregularity not affecting the  merits  of
\nthe case.  So the short point which the Court had to  decide
\nwas  whether the defect in the nomination form affected\t the
\nmerits of the case, and it held that there was no doubt that
\nthe  said failure, could riot possibly affect the merits  of
\nthe case.  It was in the context of this legal position that
\nthe  Court disapproved of the technical attitude adopted  by
\nthe High Court in dealing with the question of the  validity
\nof  the\t impugned nomination.  It is  significant,  however,
\nthat even in that case the Court has referred with  approval
\nto  its earlier decision in the case of Rattan\tAmmol  Singh
\n(1).   There is another decision of this Court on which\t the
\nrespondents have relied.  That is the case of Karnail  Singh
\nv.  Election Tribunal, Hissar (2).  It appears that in\tthat
\ncase the nomination paper of Sher Singh had been rejected on
\nthe ground that column 8 in the nomination form was not duly
\nfilled up.  The defect to which objection was taken was that
\nthe  name of the sub-division had not been stated under\t the
\nrelevant columns, though on evidence it was quite clear that
\nthere  was no defect in identifying the candidate  and\tthat
\nthe  candidate himself pointed out to the returning  officer
\nthe entry of his name in the electoral roll, and this  Court
\nheld  that the defect in question was purely  technical\t and
\nthat  the Tribunal was perfectly right in holding  that\t the
\nnomination  paper  had\tbeen  improperly  rejected.   It  is
\ndifficult   to\tsee  how  this\tdecision  can\tassist\t the
\nrespondents  at\t all.  As we have already  pointed  out\t the
\nomission  to  make a declaration about the age\tis,  in\t our
\nopinion,   an  omission\t to  comply  with  the\t substantial
\nrequirement prescribed by the form and it cannot be compared
\nwith the omission with which this Court was concerned in the
\ncase of Karnail Singh (2).\n<\/p>\n
There  is  one more decision on which the  respondents\thave
\nrelied.\t In Pt.\t Charanjit Lal Ram Sarup v. Lahri Singh\t Ram
\nNarain<\/a>\t(3)  the Punjab High Court was dealing with  a\tcase
\nwhere the nomination paper of a candidate had been  rejected
\nnot only on account of the omission to state the age in\t the
\nnomination  paper but also for the reason that\tno  evidence
\nwas led by the
\n(1) [1955) 1 S.C.R. 481.  (2) (1954) 10 E.L.R. 189.
\n(3) A.I.R, 1958 Punj. 433.\n<\/p>\n
668<\/span><\/p>\n
candidate  concerned or by his representatives or agents  to
\nshow  that the candidate had completed his 25  years  though
\nthe returning officer had directed that such evidence should
\nbe  led.  It appears that the Election Tribunal\t also  found
\nthat  on  the  evidence\t adduced  before  it  could  not  be
\ndetermined with any amount of certainty as to whether at the
\ntime of filing the nomination paper Mr. Pirthi,the candidate
\nin  question, was above or below 25 years of age.   That  is
\nwhy  it was held that the rejection of the nomination  paper
\ncould  not be said to be improper.  One of the points  urged
\nbefore the Punjab High Court was that the omission to  state
\nthe age was not a defect of a substantial character but\t the
\nHigh  Court did not feel called upon to give a firm  finding
\non  this point, because in the case before it there was\t not
\nonly  the impugned omission but there was also\tno  material
\nbefore the returning officer whereby that omission could  be
\nmade  good.   We ought, however, to add that though  on\t the
\nfacts proved in that case the election petition should\thave
\nbeen dealt with under s. 36(2)(b)<\/a> and (4) it was  apparently
\nconsidered as falling under s. 36(2)(a)<\/a> and that, as we have
\nalready\t pointed  out,\tis  not\t the  true  legal  position.
\nBesides\t there are certain general observations made in\t the
\njudgment  which\t would\tindicate that  the  High  Court\t was
\ninclined to hold that the defect arising from the failure to
\ndeclare\t the  age  in  the nomination  form  was  not  of  a
\nsubstantial character.\tIt is unnecessary to add that  these
\nobservations  do  not correctly represent the effect  of  s.
\n36(2)(b)<\/a> and s. 36(4)<\/a> of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t result the appeal is allowed, the decision  of\t the
\nHigh  Court is set aside and that of the  Tribunal  restored
\nwith costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t  Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
669<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Brijendralal Gupta And Another vs Jwalaprasad And Others on 22 April, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 1049, 1960 SCR (3) 650 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. PETITIONER: BRIJENDRALAL GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: JWALAPRASAD AND OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/04\/1960 BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. WANCHOO, K.N. GUPTA, K.C. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268353","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBrijendralal Gupta And Another vs Jwalaprasad And Others on 22 April, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Brijendralal Gupta And Another vs Jwalaprasad And Others on 22 April, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1960-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-05T18:38:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Brijendralal Gupta And Another vs Jwalaprasad And Others on 22 April, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-05T18:38:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960\"},\"wordCount\":6470,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960\",\"name\":\"Brijendralal Gupta And Another vs Jwalaprasad And Others on 22 April, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-05T18:38:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Brijendralal Gupta And Another vs Jwalaprasad And Others on 22 April, 1960\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Brijendralal Gupta And Another vs Jwalaprasad And Others on 22 April, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Brijendralal Gupta And Another vs Jwalaprasad And Others on 22 April, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-05T18:38:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Brijendralal Gupta And Another vs Jwalaprasad And Others on 22 April, 1960","datePublished":"1960-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-05T18:38:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960"},"wordCount":6470,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960","name":"Brijendralal Gupta And Another vs Jwalaprasad And Others on 22 April, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-05T18:38:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijendralal-gupta-and-another-vs-jwalaprasad-and-others-on-22-april-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Brijendralal Gupta And Another vs Jwalaprasad And Others on 22 April, 1960"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268353","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=268353"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268353\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268353"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268353"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268353"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}