(1.) These are revision petitions to revise the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in petitions presented to him under the Madras Municipalities Act, 1920. It appears that in an election for the Tuticorin Municipality, 8 ward, which was to be held in January 1923, a nomination paper was put in for Mr. A. Doraiswami Nadar, which was admittedly not signed, by the candidate but the name of the candidate was written in the nomination paper by his son owing to his (candidate's absence) at the time. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the son was authorized to sign his father's signature for this purpose but it has to be observed that the signature purports to be that of the candidate and there is no indication that it is written by somebody else. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the son was in fact authorized so to sign but under the Election Rules to which reference will be made in a moment such a signature by the agent is not recognized and, therefore, the nomination paper was invalid.
(2.) For the petitioner two points are urged: (1) that not only under the Common Law but under many English Statutes signature by the agent, even orally authorized, is perfectly good and sufficient; (2) that as the nomination paper has been accepted by the Chairman no question as to its validity is now open. The learned Subordinate Judge has carefully gone into the provisions contained in the rules and he has come to the conclusion that their object and scope require that the signature should be put in by the very party concerned and not by his proxy. Rule 2(2) runs thus: Every nomination paper shall be sub" scribed by two such electors as proposer and seconder and the candidate shall subscribe a declaration on it expressing his willingness to stand for election.
(3.) I am of opinion that it is no guide to refer to various English cases such as In re Whitley Partners [1886] 32 Ch. D. 337, which is a case under the Companies Act or the dictum in 1 Halsbury's Laws of England page 157, that an agent may be authorized to sign for another orally, which of course cannot be disputed, nor has the case cited in Pritchard V/s. Bangor Corporation [1888] 13 A.C. 241, anything to do with this matter. I am not disponed to disagree with the construction placed on Rule 2(2) by the learned Subordinate Judge.