RAJAM BHARATHI Vs. DAMODARAN NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the order of the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, setting aside the election of the petitioner from 25th Division of the City. The disputed election was held en 30th September 1948 and it was declared that the petitioner Mrs. Rajam Bharathi was the successful candidate, it having been found that she had polled 726 votes as against 459 secured by her closest competitor Mr. Damodaram Naidu. Mr. Damodaran Naidu thereon filed a petition under Rule (2) of the rules framed under Section 59(2), and Section 347 (1), City Municipal Act to have the election set aside. In para 3 (a), of his petition he alleged that on the day of polling a son of the petitioner named Dorai, who was a student in the Pachaiappa's College, went to the polling booth and claiming to be Sir A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar, Vice Chancellor of the University, asked for a voting paper in his name. Mr. Damodaran Naidu, who was then present at the booth, pointed out that Dorai was not Sir Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar and objected to have voting paper being issued to Dorai. Then Dorai asserted that earlier in the day some one had voted in the name of Mr. V. P. Row, formerly a Judge of this Court and asked why he should not be given a voting paper in the name of Sir Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar. The implication in the statement is obvious. The polling officer again refused to issue the voting paper. When this took place, the petitioner and her husband Mr. Bharathi, who was also her election agent, were both in front of the polling officer; nevertheless they kept quiet. Mr. Damodaran Naidu, therefore complained that Dorai had attempted to falsely personate Sir Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar with the knowledge and connivance of the petitioner.

(2.) In paras. 3 (b), to 3 (f) of his petition Mr. Damodaran Naidu alleged that various persons he named therein had with the knowledge and connivance of the petitioner, or her election agents, falsely personated certain others.

(3.) The petitioner denied all the allegations made in paras. 3 (b) to 3 (f) of the petition. In respect of the allegations in paras. 3 (e), her explanation was as follows: