http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: PRABHUDEV MALLIKARJUNAIAH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAMACHANDRA VEERAPPA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J) MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1962            1996 SCC  (4) 431  JT 1996 (5)    71        1996 SCALE  (4)280

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  under Section  116-B of the Representation of the  People Act,  1951 (for short, the ’Act’) arises from the judgment  of the High Court of Karnataka made on October 27, 1994  in Election  Petition No.3  of 1991. The appellant had filed  his nomination  as a Scheduled Caste candidate to the Bidar-1  (SC) Parliamentary Constituency for the 9th Lok Sabha on  April 26,  1991. It  was rejected by the Returning Officer by his proceedings dated April 27, 1991 finding that he is a Verrashiva Jangamma and that, therefore, he is not a Beda  Jangamma,   which  is  item  19  of  the  Presidential Notification in relation to the State of Karnataka. He filed the election petition in the High Court, which was dismissed by the aforesaid judgment. Thus this appeal.      Shri N.D.B.  Raju, learned  counsel for  the appellant, contended that  the appellant  was Beda Jangamma. His father was the  President of  Beda Jangamma Association. He had the benefit of  contesting the  elections as  a member  of  Beda Jangamma. The  finding of the High Court that he is not Beda Jangamma  is   not  correct.  He  contends  that  among  the Lingayaths, there are various sub-castes. Though, as a fact, it was  found that  the appellant’s sub-caste is Veerashiva, in fact,  it is  only a  Beda Jangamma.  His father  used to abopt begging  which  the  Beda  Jangamma  caste  would  do. Consequently, the  appellant cannot  be denied of the status as a  Beda Jangamma. He also sought to place strong reliance on the  judgment of  the civil Court, Ex P-14, in Misc.No.75 of 1987,  made on  February 26,  1988 in which the Appellant therein was  held to  be Beda  Jangamma and that, therefore, the  findings  of  the  High  Court  are  incorrect.  Having considered the  evidence, we  find that there is no force in the contention.      It  is   seen  that   under  Article   34(1)   of   the Constitution, the  Presidential Notification  is  conclusive

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

subject to the amendment under clause (2) of Article 341. In 1976, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act had been made. Admittedly, under item No. 19, in relation to the State of  Karnataka, Beda  Jangamma or  Budaga Jangamma  are declared  as  Scheduled  Castes.  As  a  fact,  the  finding recorded by  the High Court is that the appellant belongs to Veerashiva Lingayath  Community and  he is  a Jangamma.  The question, therefore,  is; whether Veerashiva Lingayath would be considered to be a Scheduled Caste (Beda Jangamma) within the notification  issued by the President? It is settled law that the  courts cannot give any declaration that the status with synonymous  names of  castes claimed  by the  party  is conformable to  the  names  specified  in  the  Presidential Notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution.      The finding recorded by the High Court after exhaustive consideration of  evidence including  the  judgment  of  the civil Court on which strong reliance was placed, is that the appellant is  a  Veerashiva  Lingayath  Jangamma  and  that, therefore, he  cannot be considered to be a Beda Jangamma or Budaga Jangamma.  It is  true that  the appellant has placed reliance  on  the  Census  Report  prepared  by  the  Census Department  of   the  State   of  Karnataka   and  also  the Notification issued  by  the  Legislative  Department.  That evidence also  was considered  and  for  valid  and  diverse reasons, with which we agree, the same was rightly rejected.      The civil  Court went  into the status of the appellant in the Election Petition relating to Zilla Parishad election in the  judgment Ex.P-14 on the basis of the evidence placed before it in that case. The civil Court has pointed out that the contesting  candidate had  not  seriously  disputed  the status  of   the  appellant   as  Beda  Jangamma.  The  only contention raised  was that  there were no Beda Jangammas in Gulbarga District.  That question  was gone  into and it was found that  there were  Beda Jangammas in Gulbarga District. On that  basis, the  decision was  given by the civil Court. The foundation on which the appellant claimed the status was the  certificate   issued   by   the   Assistant   Municipal Commissioner that  he is Beda Jangamma. The High Court found that the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue the certificate.  Once the status based upon the certificate issued by  the Assistant  Commissioner  was  found  to  have lacked jurisdiction,  the basis  has  been  knocked  off  to bottom. The judgment of the civil Court is not a judgment in rem nor is the High Court bound by the said judgment.      Thus considered,  we hold  that there is no warrant for finding that  the  appellant  belongs  to  Scheduled  Castes entitling him  to contest  the election as a Scheduled Caste Candidate.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.