Appu Pillai vs Nataraja Pillai and Others

Curgenven, J.—The petitioner was an unsuccessful candidate in an election to fill a vacancy in the Municipal Council of Tanjore. He got 99 votes against 100 votes obtained by respondent No. 1, who was declared elected. The petitioner riled a petition challenging the result of the election before the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore and being unsuccessful there has now filed this petition for revision of the lower Court''s order.

The question depends entirely upon whether certain votes should or should not have been rejected. The learned Subordinate Judge has on this point come to certain conclusions. I cannot say that having scrutinized the ballot papers I should have come to the same conclusions, because it appears to me that in each case where there was a second mark, which the learned Subordinate Judge considers in itself sufficient to invalidate the vote as creating a doubt as to voter''s intentions, it was produced by folding the paper transversely before the ink was dry. Nevertheless the current of authority in this Court is clearly against my interfering with the order upon any such grounds as this, which involves nothing more nor less than an appreciation of the evidence. In the Full Bench case in Appaya Gounder v. Sheik Dawood Sahib (1927) M.W.N. 842, the view was clearly expressed that where there is no question of jurisdiction or of acting illegally this Court, cannot interfere u/s 115, Civil Procedure Code. And. there is a series of subsequent decisions: A. Doraswami Nadar Vs. Joseph L. Mother and Another, , Momundi Konar v. Shamsuddin Saheb 90 Ind. Cas. 771 : AIR 1925 Mad. 1207 : 49 M.L.J. 381 : 22 L.W. 507 and Koppula Subbiah Vs. Thammana Manikyam and Another, which have proceeded upon the same principle. In Mamundi Konar v. Shamsuddin Sabeh 90 Ind. Cas. 771 : AIR 1925 Mad. 1207 : 49 M.L.J. 381 : 22 L.W. 507 which also related to the validity of ballot papers, Wallace, J., after commenting upon the lower Court''s decision and finding that it had ample jurisdiction to decide the questions before it, added:

There is in that decision neither lack of jurisdiction nor irregular exercise of jurisdiction which would give this Court authority to interfere under, Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. It cannot be reasonably contended here that this Court has to decide for itself on the question of fact as to whether the votes were or were not invalid. This Court in a civil revision petition has only to see that the lower Court exercised its jurisdiction properly.

Adopting this view, and notwithstanding that were I to give, a decision on the facts it would run counter to the lower Court''s decision, I must dismiss the petition with costs.