KHAN SAHEB MOULVI MOHAMMAD HASAN Vs. GAJADHAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question was referred to the Full Bench for decision: Whether a person who does not pay in his own right land revenue of Ra. 1,500 per annum but who is a member of a joint Hindu family paying land revenue amounting to more than Rs. 5,000 is eligible for election to the Court of Wards or the Agra Province Zamindars Association under Section 4, United Provinces Court of Wards Act, read with Rule 5 of the Rules of the Agra Province Zamindars Association and the United Provinces Electoral Rules.

(2.) The Full Bench has answered both parts of this question in the negative. Id follows that the defendant, B. Gajadhar Prasad, has not been duly elected as a member of the Court of Wards inasmuch as he was not eligible for election for such a post. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff contended in these circumstances that he was entitled to a declaration in terms of the prayer of his plaint. The prayer is in the following terms: It be declared that the plaintiff is the duly elected member of the United Provinces Court of Wards from the Agra Province Zamindars Association instead of defendant 1.

(3.) At the election sixteen votes of those present at the meeting of the Agra Province Zamindars Association on 24 January 1934, were cast in favour of the plaintiff. Ten persons voted for the plaintiff by proxy. There were three other candidates-the defendant, B. Gajadhar Prasad, Raja Harpal Singh and Capt. Raja Durga Narain Singh. Capt. Raja Durga Narain Singh received 33 votes from those present at the meeting and 382 votes by proxy, Raja Harpal Singh 29 votes of those present at the meeting and 385 by proxy; Gajadhar Prasad 24 votes of those-present at the meeting and 383 by proxy. The record of the proceedings shows that there were 34 persons present at the meeting and that in all 389 proxies were produced. In these circumstances it is clear that at the meeting at which the election of representatives to the Court of Wards took place a majority of those present or voting by proxy did not support the candidature of the plaintiff. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff maintained that according to the general principles of common law as applied in England in election oases his client being next on the poll to the candidate disqualified, is entitled to a declaration in terms of the aforementioned prayer.