The second case is a decision of four Judges and it defines the powers of the Election Tribunal in the matter of amendment of pleadings. As we have held that there was no severance of the joint family, the evidentiary value of these documents must be rejected on the ground that they were further attempts on the part of the family to keep up the appearance consistent with the alleged partition. Section 83(3) of the Act before the amendment corresponds to s.

D-54 nor Ex-D-32 effected a severance of Govindprasad from the joint family, the said documents would not carry the matter further; for the Wills were based upon the assertions made by Govindprasad that he was separated from his family in 1898 and that the properties he was bequeathing were his self-acquistions. 1 had employed two persons in excess of the prescribed number for his election purposes. If, as we have held, neither Ex.

Holding that corrupt practice had been committed by the appellants, it declared their election void under s. That the word " representative" does not mean an agent but is intended to convey the idea of one representing a ward and as such brought on record in that capacity, is made clear by the other provisions of the Act wherein the same word appears. The appellant relies upon the Wills executed by Govindprasad in 1912, 1919, 1920, 1926 and 1930 to establish that he was divided from the family, and 273 that he was treating some properties as his self- acquisitions.

If the intention of the legislature was only to provide for the appointment of a separate agent to help the Collector, who had a dual role to perform, it would have used the word " agent " in the section. Anantji Bhikaji (2), the temple was a public one. But a statute may confer power upon an authority other than the court to appoint a representative to a disqualified person. This decision also turns upon the relevant provisions of Act 43 of 1951 before it was amended by Act 27 of 1956.

500 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case, the respondent in the appeal filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellants to the U. Section 57 of the Act reads: " I told them that the issue of the licences had not been authorised by me as they purported to be and that they had been obtained fraudulently, though at that stage I was unable to say how exactly and by whom the fraud was committed.

No list of particulars of corrupt practices was attached to the petition. In other respects, so far, as it is material to the question raised, no change has been introduced in the other relevant sections. It was held by the High Court that under Hindu law, the manager of a public temple has no right to remove the image from the old temple and instal it in another new building, especially when the removal is objected to by a majority of the worshippers.

Legislative Assembly on the ground that they had committed corrupt practices, the material 301 allegations being, (i) that the appellants " could in the furtherance of their election enlist the support of certain Government servants ", and (ii) that the appellant No. A statutory representative acts for, and in the place of, a disqualified ward and without such valid representative on record the suit cannot legally proceed, just like in the case of a minor or a lunatic to represent whose interests no guardian is appointed.

These facts are not denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the State. That apart, the Collector does not require the statutory power to appoint an agent to help him in the conduct of a suit; for, as a party to the suit, he can always appoint separate Advocates for the two wards. That is the position in the present case. 90(5) of the amended Act. 1990 having a bearing on the subject was placed for consideration by the appellant- assessee. Before the High Court, a Circular No.

Long after the period of limitation prescribed for the filing of election petitions, the respondent applied for amendment of his petition by adding the names of certain village Headmen (Mukhias) as having worked for the appellants and later on becoming their polling agents. Kane appeared, and in the course of his argument, he stated as follows: It is interesting to note that in this case Dr. The Election Tribunal allowed the amendment on the ground that the allegations sought to be introduced by the amendment were mere particulars of the charge already made.

The High Court in a judgment dated April 15, 1952, delivered in the petition to transfer the said case to some other Court recorded the admitted fact that there was political rivalry between the Minister and the proprietor. They are appointed by court to represent a minor or a lunatic, as the case may be, and the suit without such representative cannot legally proceed. In the said counter-affidavit the following cryptic statement occurs: Ultimately, this Court transferred the said criminal case from the State of Bihar to the file of a Magistrate's Court in Delhi on the ground that there was political rivalry between the two persons.

It is also stated that before the said election, the Revenue Minister filed a criminal case against the proprietor in the District Court of Hazaribagh charging him under s. The aforesaid instruction may be conveniently reproduced herein below.