LAWS(SC)-1955-9-9

CHATTANATHA KARAYALAR Vs. RAMACHANDRA IYER

Decided On September 19, 1955
CHATTANATHA KARAYALAR Appellant
V/S
RAMACHANDRA IYER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Election Tribunal, Quilon declaring, the election of the appellant to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Travancore-Cochin from the Shencottah Constituency void on the ground that he was disqualified to stand for election under S. 7(d) read with S. 9 (2) of Act No. XLIII of 1951.

(2.) Under S. 7 (d), a person is disqualified for being chosen as a member of the Legislative Assembly of a State, if he is interested in any contract for the supply of goods or for the execution of any works for the Government of that State. Section 9 (2) declares that if any such contract has been entered into by or on behalf of a Hindu undivided family, every member thereof shall be subject to the disqualification mentioned in S. 7 (d); but that if the contract has been entered into by a member of an undivided family carrying on a separate business in the course of such business, other members of the family having no share or interest in that business shall not be disqualified under S. 7 (d).

(3.) The contract in the present case was for felling trees in a Government forest and transporting them for delivery at the places specified therein. There is now no dispute that this contract is one that falls within S. 7(d) of the Act. The point in controversy is simply whether the contract with the Government was entered into on behalf of the joint family, of which the appellant is a member. The agreement stands in the name of one Kuppuswami Karayalar, and the allegations in the petition are that he is a mere name-lender for one Krishnaswami Karayalar, who is the manager of a joint family consisting of himself an his sons, the appellant being one of them, and that he entered into the contract in question on behalf of and for the benefit of the joint family. The case of the appellant, on the other hand, is that Kuppuswami whose name appears in the contract was the person solely entitled to the benefits thereof, that he was not a name-lender for Krishnaswami Karayalar, and that further neither he nor the joint family had any interest in the contract. Certain other pleas were also put forward by him but they are not now material.