RATANSEY DAMJI Vs. RATANSEY VIRJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a notice of motion asking the Court to give its opinion on the points referred to in the special report made by the learned Commissioner on August 28, 1937.

(2.) IN connection with the appointment of trustees of a charity for the benefit of a caste an order was made on February 25, 1937, that a meeting of the Jain Cutchi Dassa Oswal Mahajan be held for the appointment of three additional trustees. The learned Commissioner was to prepare a list of voters who were entitled to vote, and a meeting was to be called for the purpose of electing three additional trustees. The Commissioner gave directions that nomination papers of candidates should be submitted by July 19, 1937, and he fixed July 26, 1937, for scrutinising nomination papers. The Commissioner received five nomination papers, but two out of the five candidates subsequently withdrew. Whilst scrutinising the remaining three nomination papers the Commissioner rejected the nomination paper of one Ratansey Damji Mavji, and the present questions arise out of the said rejection.

(3.) IT will be noticed from the above that against the space marked 'signature' nothing was inserted. Wherever the name of Ratansey Damji appears, it is put in by a rubber stamp. Mr. Ratansey Damji in his evidence before the Commissioner stated that that was his nomination paper, and that all the rubber stamp impressions on it were made with his own hand. He stated that after putting the rubber stamp impressions of his name and address on the nomination paper, he went to Dr. Meisheri and told him that he wanted to stand for election as a trustee and requested him to propose his name. Dr. Meisheri asked him if he was willing to serve as a trustee and he replied in the affirmative. Dr. Meisheri then signed the nomination paper, and gave it back to Ratansey Damji. Next day Ratansey saw Chaturbhuj and asked him to second his nomination. He told Narsey Chaturbhuj that he wanted to stand for election as a trustee, and Chaturbhuj thereupon signed the nomination paper. He then met plaintiff No. 2 near his pedhi and handed over to him his nomination paper to be filed in the Commissioner's office and it was filed in proper time. He was cross-examined by the other parties, but I have no reason to doubt his evidence, and I accept it as correct.