# ~04 BHAIYA RAM MUNDA v. ANIRUDH PATAR & ORS

- **Citation:** [1971] 1 S.C.R. 804
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-08-14
- **Case number:** Election Petition: No. 9 of 1969
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Bhargava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/04-bhaiya-ram-munda-v-anirudh-patar-ors-5287
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)Order, 1950, Part ill-When evid•nce
adniissible for finding the scope of an entry in Order-So111e sub-tribes
under an entry included-Whether other sub-tribes dee111ed ·excludcdEffect of adniission by uieniber of ScheduJ£'d Tribe that he was not a 111e1nber of the tribe.
In Part ll! of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, issued
by the President of India under Art. 342, Munda is specified as a scheduled tribe, but not Patar. The first respondent was a Patar. He was declared
elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from a scheduled tribes constituency.
The appellant, who was an unsuccessful candidate, filed an election petition tor setting aside the election on the ground that the first res-
;>ondent was not a member of a scheduled tribe. The High Co4rt dismissed
the petition holding that the first respondent •v:is a Munda and was hence
a member o~ a scheduled tribe.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD ' (I) Evidence is admissible for the purpose of showing what
an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to mean, but not so as
to modify the Order by including other tribes. Since the first respondent's
A
B
c
D
case was not that Patars arc a distinct co1nn1unity who arc regard1~d as
E
Mundas but that Pata.rs are Mundas, evidence may be given to sho\v that
the entry Munda .includes Patars. [814 B-C; 815 A]
B. Basava/ingappa v. Mu11iclii1111appa, [1965] l S.C.R. 316, Bl1aiya-
/a/ v. Harikislwn Singh & Ors. [1965] 2 S.C.R. 877, Laxma11 Siddappa Naik
v. Kattima11i Clwniappa lamappanna & Ors,
[1968] 2 S.C.R. 805
and
Dina v. Narayan Singh & Anr. C.A.No. 1622/67 dt.
21-5-1968, referred ft.
F
(2) Whether a particular person is a member of a scheduled tribe so
declared by the President is essentially a question of law.
Though an
adn1ission made hy him expressly or hy in1plication that he is not a memher
of a scheduled trihc i:;; evidence against hitn in an election petition. tho
evidence is not conclusive. [808 B-C'I
(~j Jf a n1en1bcr of a scheduled tribe, tran~fers property by a deed in
G
whiah he describes himself to be not a member of the scheduled tribe
in order to avoid refusal of registration u_ndcr s._ 46 of the Chota Nagpur
Tenancy Act, he will not, on that account, be t~·isentitlcd to clairti the
status of a member of scheduled tribe. It could not be said, on that
groun\j alone, that the tra~sferor was not a member of a scheduled tribe
or \<US estopped from settmg up that status. [808 D-EI
( 4) The e>idcncc in the case established that Patars arc a sub-tribe
H
of fl,funtlas <tOd thal they arc not diffcrcnl fro1n Munda,,·,
[SJJ F.(jJ
(5) If Patars arc Mundas, because some sub-tribes of "AfundtlS arc
BHAIYA RAM V, ANIRUDH PATAR (Shah, J.)
805
A
enumerate<l in the Presidential Order and others arc not, no inference
will arise that those not enumerated are not Mundas.
Merely because
Patars are not specifically mentioned in the Presidetial order, they cannot be on_ that account alone he excluded from the general heading of
Munda. [813 G-H]

## Text

~04
BHAIYA RAM MUNDA
v.
ANIRUDH PATAR & ORS.
August 14, 1970
(J. C. SHAH AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.j
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)Order, 1950, Part ill-When evid•nce
adniissible for finding the scope of an entry in Order-So111e sub-tribes
under an entry included-Whether other sub-tribes dee111ed ·excludcdEffect of adniission by uieniber of ScheduJ£'d Tribe that he was not a 111e1nber of the tribe.
In Part ll! of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, issued
by the President of India under Art. 342, Munda is specified as a scheduled tribe, but not Patar. The first respondent was a Patar. He was declared
elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from a scheduled tribes constituency.
The appellant, who was an unsuccessful candidate, filed an election petition tor setting aside the election on the ground that the first res-
;>ondent was not a member of a scheduled tribe. The High Co4rt dismissed
the petition holding that the first respondent •v:is a Munda and was hence
a member o~ a scheduled tribe.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD ' (I) Evidence is admissible for the purpose of showing what
an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to mean, but not so as
to modify the Order by including other tribes. Since the first respondent's
A
B
c
D
case was not that Patars arc a distinct co1nn1unity who arc regard1~d as
E
Mundas but that Pata.rs are Mundas, evidence may be given to sho\v that
the entry Munda .includes Patars. [814 B-C; 815 A]
B. Basava/ingappa v. Mu11iclii1111appa, [1965] l S.C.R. 316, Bl1aiya-
/a/ v. Harikislwn Singh & Ors. [1965] 2 S.C.R. 877, Laxma11 Siddappa Naik
v. Kattima11i Clwniappa lamappanna & Ors,
[1968] 2 S.C.R. 805
and
Dina v. Narayan Singh & Anr. C.A.No. 1622/67 dt.
21-5-1968, referred ft.
F
(2) Whether a particular person is a member of a scheduled tribe so
declared by the President is essentially a question of law.
Though an
adn1ission made hy him expressly or hy in1plication that he is not a memher
of a scheduled trihc i:;; evidence against hitn in an election petition. tho
evidence is not conclusive. [808 B-C'I
(~j Jf a n1en1bcr of a scheduled tribe, tran~fers property by a deed in
G
whiah he describes himself to be not a member of the scheduled tribe
in order to avoid refusal of registration u_ndcr s._ 46 of the Chota Nagpur
Tenancy Act, he will not, on that account, be t~·isentitlcd to clairti the
status of a member of scheduled tribe. It could not be said, on that
groun\j alone, that the tra~sferor was not a member of a scheduled tribe
or \<US estopped from settmg up that status. [808 D-EI
( 4) The e>idcncc in the case established that Patars arc a sub-tribe
H
of fl,funtlas <tOd thal they arc not diffcrcnl fro1n Munda,,·,
[SJJ F.(jJ
(5) If Patars arc Mundas, because some sub-tribes of "AfundtlS arc
BHAIYA RAM V, ANIRUDH PATAR (Shah, J.)
805
A
enumerate<l in the Presidential Order and others arc not, no inference
will arise that those not enumerated are not Mundas.
Merely because
Patars are not specifically mentioned in the Presidetial order, they cannot be on_ that account alone he excluded from the general heading of
Munda. [813 G-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2039 of
B
1969.
c
D
E
F
G
H
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 from the ,iudgment and order dated August 19, 1969
of the Patna High Court in Election Petition: No. 9 of 1969.
D. Goburdhun and R. Goburdhun, for the appellant.
K. K. Sinha, S. Thakur Prasad and S. S. Jauhar, for respondent No. I.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J.
At the "mid-term elections" held in January 1969
Anirudh Patar (the !st respondent in this appeal) was declared
elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from the Tamar Assembly
Constituancy No. 296 (Scheduled Tribes).
Bhaiya Ram
Munda-an unsuccessful candidate at the election-applied to the
High Court of Patna for an order setting aside the election on
the plea that the 1st respondent was not a member of a scheduled
tribe and was on that account not qualified under s. 5 of the
Representation of the· People Act, 1951 to be chosen to fill a
seat in the Legislative Assembly of Bihar from a reserved constituency for scheduled tribes.
The High Court dismissed
the
petition holding that the 1st respondent was a member of a
Scheduled Tribe called "Munda" specified in Part III of the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 issued in exercise
of the powers under Art. 342 of the Constitution.
Bhaiya Ram
Munda has appealed to this Court ull;der s. 1l6A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
·
Section 5 of the Representation of the People Act,
1951
provides:
"A person shaH not be qualified to be chosen to
fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of a Stateunless-
(a) in the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled
Castes or for the Scheduled Tribes of that
State, he is a member of ainy of those castes
·or of thos~ tribes, ~s the case may be, and is an
806
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 1 S.C.R.
elector for any Assembly constituency in
that
A
State;
•
•
•
•
*"
Article 342 of the Constitution, insofar as it is relevant, provides :
"(!) The President may with respect to any State
or Union
territory,
.
.
.
by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal
communities
or
parts of or groups within. tribes or tribal commll!nities
which shall for the purposes of this
Constitution be
deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in retation to that State
or Union Territory, as the case may be.
(2) Parliament may be Jaw include in or exclude
from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notificrrtion issued under clause ( 1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal
community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued
under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification."
In exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 342, the President
issued an Order called the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes)
Order, 1950 which by the second clause provided :
"The tribes or tribal communities, or parts of. or
groups within, tribes or tribal communities specified in
Parts I to XIl of the Scheduled to this Order shall,
in relation to the States to which those Parts respectively relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes so far as
regards members thereof resident in the localities specified in relation to them respectively in those Parts of
that Schedule."
In the Schedule the names of certain tribes are set out. and in
Part ITT under the heading the State of Bihar are design·ated certain tribes.
The tribes designated in Part ITT are deemed to be
Scheduled Tribes throughout the State of Bihar.
Mrmdas does
but Patar does not occur in Part Ill.
The 1st respondent contended that Patan are Mundas, and that it is only non-Munda<
who calJ the various exogamous grouos belonging to the tribes
residine: generallv in Si.ngbhum and the adiaccnt area and belonginq to various ki/is as Mun1as, or pqfor Munda<. Mahali Munda<.
Taman'as, Bunduars and Maranf! Munda, and others.
He contends that he does not cease to be a Munda merely because his
familv name is Patar.
The aooellant raised two ar~utrn'tnts in supoort of his petition-(!) that Pqtars ar~ not Munda<. and (2) !liat even if
ll
c
n
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BHAIYA RAM 1'. ANIRUDH PATAR (Shah, J.)
807
Patars are M11ndas, since the name of Patar has not be included
in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order,
1950, Part III
applicable. to Bihar, he cannot be chosen to sit in the Assembly
from the reserved coostituency by
merely
calling himself a
Munda.
Considerable evidence oral and documentary was
tendered
before the High Court.
In support of his case the appellant
relied upon-( I) a sale deed executed by the 1st respondent on
January 11, 1969 which recited that the 1st respondent did not
claim the status of a member of a Scheduled Tribe; (2) entries
in the revenue records and ( 3) oral evidence of wiwsses who
deposed that the 1st respondent was not a Munda.
In support of his case the 1st respondent relied upon-( I)
a judgment of the High Court of Patna declaring that Palars are
Mundas; (2) Khatian entries in which Patars were entered as
Mundas; (3) a certificate dated July 15. 1941 given by Rai
Bahadur Sarat Chandra Roy (manv years before the date on
which the dispute arose) certifying that one Kshetia Mohan
Patar son of Gobardhan Patar of village Kumar Rapa,
tham~
Tamar, District Ranchi belonged to the Patar (Munda) tribe;
and ( 4) oral testimonv of the witnes9es who deposed that th1;;
1st respondent was a Munda.
The name of the first respondent was entered in the voters
list as a member of a Scheduled Tribe.
The first respondent
stood as a candidate· for election to the Bihar State Legislative
Assemb1y in 1962, and was elected from the Scheduled Tribe
Cl tStituencv.
Nomination was filed by him at that election as
a Patar.
In 1967 too the first respondent stood from the
Tamar Scheduled Tribe Constituencv for ele~tion to the Bihar
Legislative Assembly but he was defeated.
Tt also appears from
'the record that Mr. Jaipal Singh who was also a Patar was elected as a member of the Parliament to a reserved seat from
u
constituencv in the Bihar Stale was a member of the Scheduled
Tribe.
,
The first question to be determined is whether Patars are not
Munda.~ : The apuellant placed strong reliance upon a sale deed
executed bv the first respondent Qll January 11, 1969 (few davs
before the elections) conveying propertv and declarinl! therein
that the first respondent was not a member of ·"ny Scheduled Caste
nr backward communitv.
Under s. 46 of the Chhota Nagpur
Tenancv Act VT of 1908 without the sanction of the Deputv
Commissioner the members of the Scheduled
Ttibe~ cannot
transfer their lands.
Tt is common PTOund that to the area of the
Tamar Constituencv that Act anplied.
A deed evMencing sale of
land pres~nted for registration by a member of a Scheduled Tribe
sos
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[197111 S.C.R.
could not be registered unless the sale was sanctioned
by
the
A
Deputy Commissioner.
According to the first respondent it was
the vendee who inserted into the deed the statement in order to
avoid refusal
of registration
by the authorities.
Assuming .
that the statement was incorporated in the deed with the co:n'.ent
of the first respondent no estoppel Jirises against him.
Whether
a particular person is a member of a Scheduled Tribe so declared
a·
bv the President under Art. 342 of the Constitution is essentially
a· question of law.
Though an admission made by him expres~\y
or by implication that he is not a member of a Scheduled Tribe ..
is evide1nce against him in an election petition, the evidence is not
conclusive.
·
Khatian entries Exts. I/a and I/b shaw that sale deeds exe.
cuted by Patars were admitted to registration and mutation entries
were posted pursuant thereto.
There is no evidence whether in
respect of those sale deads permission of the Deputy Commissioner was taken before they were executed.
It is not possible
to infer from the revenue entries that sanction of the Deputy
Commissioner was not obtained or that Patars are not Mundas.
Granting that the prohibition contained in s. 46 o.f the Chhota
Nagpur Tenancy Act was violated by a member of a Scheduled
Tribe, he will not on that account 'be dise.ntitled to
claim
the
status of a member of a schedule tribe.
The
transact:ons
of
c
D
E
sale may be void, but it cannot be said, relying on that
ground alone, that the transferor was not member of a Scheduled
Tribe or was estopped from setting up that status.
Exts. 1 (g)
and 1 (h) are sale deeds executed bv Mund as and sancti0i11 of the
Deputy Commissioner was obtained before execution of the sale
deeds.
Exhibits 4 and 4 (a) are certified copies of two raiyati
Khatians in which the caste of the tenants who were Pmars is
mentioned as Patar. but from that also no inference arises that ·
they are a tribe distinct from Mundas.
F
The oral evidence led on behalf of the appellant is unconvincing.
Faud Singh Munda P. W. I asserted that Patras
are
not a branch of the Munda Tribe, but they are a separate caste.
According to him Patars could convey their propertv without the
permission of the Deputy Commissioner, that Paham perform
ceremonies in the families of M11ndas. but Brahmins assisted by
barbers per.form religious ceremonies in the families of Patars;
that Munda• do not offer Piwl in Shradh, Patars do offer;
that
the Sun is the supreme deitv for the Mundm but Patars worship
Rama and Krishna: and that M1111das celebrate Sarbu/ festival.
but Patars
do not.
Jn
cross-examination he
stated
that
he has never attended any Patar marriage ceremQny or Shradh
and that he had not seen anv Patar ofl'erinq anv Pind but had
only heard about it,
The witness was 11nahle to say how Patars
G
H
A
B
c
D
BHAIYA RAM V. ANIRUDH PATAR (Shah, J.)
809
pertormed the P11ja.
It appeared that he had not much information even about Munda customs and ceremonies.
The statement of Gandharb Singh Munda P.W. 2 in examination-in-chief was similar to the testimony of P.W. I. In crossexamination the witness stated that M11ndas were 1not Gonds but
they were ''a separate caste" and that he had never attended a
Patar :'1arriage ceremony and was never invited by any Patar
on the occasion of Shradh.
He admitted that non-Mundas
::Isa celebrated Sarhul.
But
according to him Patars
from
other villages came to worship goddess Diuri
of his
village
which was worshipped by M1111da.1'.
He did not appear to be
competent to speak about the customs and usages of Patars as
disiinguished from those of Mundas.
The witness did not know
that those who are generally called Mundas are in reality Komput
M11ndas.
~udhir Kumar Choudhury P.W. 4 (who is a Brahmin) stated
that there were Mrmdas in Tamar villages; that his next door
neighbour was a Munda: and that Brahmi'ns
performed
the
marriage and Shradh i1n the families of
Mundas.
He stated
that all the deities who are worshipped by Hindus are worshipped
"in the fomily o.f the first respondent" and that marriage
and
Shradh ceremonies are performed in
the family of the first
respondent
in the same way as thev are performed in Hindu
families.
The witness admitted that he had not personally seen
E · the performance of Puia of Rama and Krishna in the house of
the first respondent.
The High Court observed that the answers
given bv the witness in his cross-examination indicated that he had
no. familiaritv with the customs of Mundas.
Abhimanvu Singh Munda P.W. 5 stated that the first responF. dent was a Patm· bv caste and the customs of marriage
and
Shradh amongst the Mu11das
and
Patars were different .. Jin
cross-examination he said that in the aTea within the Tamar Police
Station Mundas speak Mundari whereas Patars
speak
Panch
Pargania.
This. was however. plainlv contrary to what the other
witnesses had stated.
He said that there was only one family of
Patars in his vi1Jage: that he was invitei bv that familv on the
G' occasin1s of marriage and Shradh: and that he did not know
the Gatro of that fomilv.
He further stated that all the scheduled
tribes of Chhota Nagour drink Hanri11 but the witness denied
that the Patars drink Hanria. Tn the view of the High Court. reliance could not be placed upon the testimonv c.f this witness.
We
H
see no reason to disa.gree with it.
·
P.W. 6 is the apoellant himself.
He repeated what was
stated hv P.W. 1. P.W. 2 and P.W. 5.
He asserted that Patars
do not helon.g to a Scheduled Tribe.
He admitted however that
810
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
. [1971] 1 S.C.R.
he had never
attended any ccrenlllny of marriage or
S/Jratlh
or any omer !unction 1n a Patm· family and that he could no•
competently speak about the ceremonial customs of Patars.
He
also denied that the son of P.W. 1 was an employee of the Seva
Manda!, a tact which was admitted by P.W. 1.
The first respondent has relied in support of his
case upon
Ext>. A, B, B/J & C.
Exhibit A is the certificate issued by Rai
Bahadur Sarat Chandra Roy certifying one Kshetra Mohan Patat
as belonging to the Patar (Munda) tribe. Exhibits Band B/ 1 are
entries in the Khatian and Ext. C is the judgment delivered by
Ahmad, J .. o.f the Patna Hi~h Court in a case rela'ing to the
acceptance of Patars as Mw1das.
Kshetra Mohan Patnr R.W. l stated that there were several
sects amongst the Munda.1· and T'atm· was one of such sects.
'f4e
witness further stated that Palwns officiate as priests at the time
of marriage in the families of all
the
sub-castes of M1mdas
and Brahmins do not officiate as priests on such occasions; that
Patars also bury the bones of such dead bodies which are burnt
at -a place
called . Sasan
or Hargaddi
and that they
also
worship the Sun and other deities worshipped by Mundas.
He
also spoke about the inter-marriages bet•.vee.n Patars. Bhumijs and
Maha/is which were sub-castes of Mundas.
Daroo Pahan R.W. 2 is not a Patar but a Munda.
He stated
that Khangars and Parm;< are ;uh-castes of Mundas, that some
boys of Mundas of his village had married Patar girls, that th05c
bovs with their Patm· wives were living in his village.
He also
said that Puja was performed by his brother, when Barats of
Mundas returned to the village with Patar wives.
He gave details
about the names of some of the Patar girls married to Munda
boys in his village.
Jamir Munda R.W. 3 said that he had married a Patar ~Ir!;
and that there were two main branches of Mundas-one consist·
ing of Patars. KhanRar< anrl Maha/is and the other consisting
of Babuan<. Mundat and Kn/ Mundas, and except Babuans others
inter-married among themselves.
He stated in cross-examination
that Patar is merely a title and not a sub-caste.
Khudi Ram Munda RW. 4 stated that there were two main
branches
of
Mundas-one
consisting
of Mundas,
Patars.
Khan~ars and Mahali<. ·and the other
consisting
of Mankls,
Thakur<. Bahuan< and Mundaris: that Pahan< officiated as priests
on the occasion o.f marria!!es in the familv of Patars and Patars
also performed Sarna Prdn and celebrated Sm•bul festival; th~t
his nephew had m'arried the daughter of a Patar and that his
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
I)
E
F
G
H
RHAIYA RAM V, ANlRUDH PATAR (Shah, ].)
811
present wife was also a Patar.
In cross-examination he admitted that those Patars who were rich called Brahmins to perform
Puja etc. on ceremonial occasions.
R1m Jatan Patar R.W. 5 stated that in the Khatian the caste
at his father was entered as Patar Munda.
He further stated that
the daughter of his nephew Satya Narain was married with the
nephew of Khudi Ram Munda.
Raghunath Munda R.W. 6 stated that there were two branches
of Mundas-Mundas
a.w.I
Patar M1111das.
He further stated
that the customs followed by Patars on the occasion of marriages
in their families were the same as followed by Mundas;
that
Patars as well as M11ndas buried the bones 9f the dead at
Sasandril, that Paham generally officiated
as priests
at the
ceremony of marriage among M1mda.1 and Patars but those who
were rich also called Brahmins to officiate as priests on those
occasions; that the main festivals of Mundas as well as Patar.1
were Sm·bu/ and Bum P11ja; and that Mundas and Parars both
spoke M11ndari.
Bahadur Pa tar R. W. 7 gave similar testimony.
Harihar Singh Munda R.W. 9 supported the testimony of
witnesses R.Ws. 3 & 4.
He spoke about the various sects of
the Mundas and also about the prevalence of
some
customs
relating to marriages and other ceremonies of Patars and Mundas.
Kumar Amarendra Nath Sah Dea R. W. 10 st3ted that in the
marriages in the families of Mundas and Patars general!y Pahans
officiated as priests; that those who were
rich
also
invited
Brahmins on the occasion and there were inter-marriages between
Patars
and
other branches of the Mundas.
He also
spoke about the custom of burying the bones of the deceased
members in the families of Patars.
The first respondent R.W. 11 stated that his name was entered
in the voters' list prepared in 1960, that he was elected to the
Bihar State Legislative Assembly in the elections held in 1962
and that he lost in the elections of 1967.
'He a]sc, corroborated
the statements of his witnesses relating to the customs of Munda<
and has asserted that Patars are M1111das.
Dr. Sachchicananda R.W. 8 is a
renewed
anthropologist.
He has made a study of tribal culture in Bihar and has written
several books on anthropology.
In his book "Profiles of Tribal
Culture in Bihar" and in his articles on Mundas in Bihar he has
stated ~hat Patars are Munda1'.
He confirmed that opinion on
the basts of anthropological studies,
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] l S.C.R
Dr. Sarat Chandra Roy in his publication "M11ndas and this
Country" at p. 400 has observed :
'The Af1111da ti:ibc is divided into a lar~c number
of exogamous groups called ki/is. According .. to Munda
tradition. all the members of the same kili are descended
from one common ancestor.
But such a tradition may
110t be quite correct with regard to the original ki/is.
T!lough exogamous as regards the ki/is, the Mund~.1 are
endogamous
so
far
as
other
tribes
are
concenned.
Thus, there can now be no valid
marriages,
according to M1111da custom, bctwce;1 a Munda and
the member o( any other 'Kolarian' tribe, such as the
Santa/.1·,
. . . . ''
Dr. Sarat Chandra Roy has then referred to the
various
subtribes known as Blwmij-Mundas, Kh'mgars and observed :
"In Parganas Buindu and Tamar.
these Khangar
Mundm· are known as
Patar Mundav,
in parts
of
Kunti Thana as Mahli Mundas, in Singbhum as
Tamarias. in Gangpur as Bunduars and
in Pargana
Balkaddi by the significant name of Marang Mundas."
In his "Profiles o.f Tribal Culture in Bihar" Dr. Sachchidananda
has said at p. 40 :
"The entire Munda tribe consists of an elder · and
A
B
c
D
younger branch, the Maha/i Mundako and the Kompat
E
Mundakc- respectively.
The former are found mainly
in Tamar Parnana of the Ra1'1Chi District and are also
known as Pata-r,
Ordinarily Munda or those belonging
to the younger branch form the bulk of the Munda
population.
Both
these branches
are
endogamous.
The former are conside1cd
socially
inferior to the
F
latter."
,
The author then stated at p. 41
"Jn Tamar area the social stratification among the
Munda has reached a developed
.form.
Six
distinct
classes or castes may b~ distinguished.
These may be
grouped into two 't (a) the Zamindars or landlords
and (b} the tenants.
Jn ~roup A we have at the top,
landlords called Thakur who hold above fifteen villages
each.
Next com~ Mank; who are
lesser
landlords
holding upto ten or e'even viilages each. . . . .
In group B are the M1111dari who are Munda tenants.
Tntermarria~e between Mundari and the
above menti?ned. fo~r' classes !s wel! nigh impossible due to great
dtspanty m economic and social status.
At the bottom
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
ilHAIYA RAM V. ANJRUDH PATAR (Shah, J.)
81J
ol the Mwula society in Tamar arc the Patar
who
belong to the Malw1i-M1111dako branch uf
the tribe.
Thougl1 they hold small bits of land there is no social
intercourse between them and the upper five
groups.
Not cmiy is intermarriage unthinkable but even water
cannot be taken 1 rom the hands of a Patar."
Patars arc it appears regarded as the lowest in the social order
amongst Ille Mwulas but they are still Mundas.
· In Encydopaedia Mundarica by
llt~v. John Hotlmann in
collaborat1on with Rev. Arthur Van Emelen, Vol. IX, at p. 2881
it is stated that "Munda is a name which has been given to the
Mundas by tne Hinuus·· and is exclusively used by all but the
Mundas themselves.
Under the heading Mu~aa are given the
names of utlferent sub-tflbes ot the Mr111</as one of
which
is
Mahali.
At p. 2756 in the same book after the head '"Mahali"
it is said that a Maha Ii is a Munda of the elder branch.
The
author then proceeded to say that the Maha/is are
also
called
Tamadias especially by Hindus and in Chuta-Nagpur they are
called Khangars. ln Tamar they are called Pators. The Mtmdari
they speak is characterized by 1 great /ll.Umber of vocal checks.
They have practically all the dans ~kilis) found amongst
the
Mundas.
The cvidcn~c given on bchall Jf the lirst respu1.u~ut is ampiy
supported by studtes made by distinguished anthropologists.
The
first respondent was without any objection recorded in the voters'
list as a member of the Scheduled Tribe.
He was elected in
1962 from a scheduled tribe constitue,ncy.
He again contested
the elections from that constituency in 1967 but he was defeated. It is only in 1969 when at the .fresh elections that he contested the seat and was declared elected when an objection . was
raised that he did not belong tn a scheduled tribe.
On a consideration of all the evidence we are of the view that Patars are
a sub-tribe of M1111da.1 an,! that they arc
not
different from
M1111das.
The alternative argument advanced by counsel for the appellant has also no substance.
It is true that in Pan III of the
Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950
issued under Art. 342 of the Constitution the ;name "Mu;1da" is
mentioned and similarly the names of other snb-tribes amongst
Mundas are mentioned.
Counsel for the appellant contended that
if according to
Dr.
Sachchidanand Maha/is,
Ho,
Bhumijs,
Asur, Baiga, and Khangars are M11ndas,
specific
mention of
some of those tribes in the Schedule Tribes Order clearly indicated that l'atars who are not mentioned therein are not a Scheduled
Tribe within the meaning of the Order.
There is however ;no
814
SUPREME COURT REPOR1S
llY7lj i s.c.1t
warrant ior that view. lf Patars are Mu1idas, because some
sub-tnbes ol Mundas are enumerated in the Oroer and others
are not, no mterence will arise that those not enumerated are not
Mundas.
We are l11!lable to hold that because Patars are not
specilicaliy mentioned in the List they cannot be included in the
general neadmg Munda,
Decisions in support of the contention that the Courts calllllot
allow evidence to oe t'!ken for proving that certain classes
o.f
people tl10ugh not expressly oes1gnated in the Presidential Order
were intended to be covered by the Order may be briefly referred
to.
lt may sufiice to state however that it is not the case of the
11rst respqndent that Patars are a distinct community, but that
they should be regarded as M undas because of th.e similarity of
cusmms, religious beliefs, forms of worship and
other
social
obligations.
ln JJ. Basava/ingappa v. D. Munichinnappa(') the relevant
facts were that M who was elected from a Scheduled Castes
constituency claimed to belong to the Bhovi caste which was
one of the Scheduled Castes mentioned in the Constituti0in ( Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 issued by the President under Art. 341
of the Constitution.
In an election petition it was claimed that
M belonged to the Voddar caste which was not mentioned i.n
the Order and that on that account M was
not entitled to
stand for election from Scheduled Caste constituency.
Evidence
was Jed before the Election Tribunal that Bhovi was a sub-caste
of the Voddar caste and as M did inot belong to the Bhovi subcaste he could not stand for election from the constituency.
The
High Court in appeal held that although Voddar caste was not
included in the Order, yet considering the facts and circumstances
in existence at the time when the Order was passed in 1950,
the Bhovi caste mentioned in the order was the same as the
Voddar caste.
In appeal to this Court it was contended that the
High Court was wrong in considering the evidence
and
then
coming to the cqnclusion that the caste Bhovi mentioned in the
Order was meant for the caste Voddar and that the Tribunal
should have declined to allow evidence to be produced which
would have the effect of modifying the ()rder issued
by
the
President.
This Court held that the evidence clearly showed
that in 1950 when the Order was passed there was no caste in the
then Mysore State which was known as Bhovi and the Order
could ,not have intended to recognise a caste which did not exist.
It was therefore necessary to find out which caste was meant by
the use of the name Bhovl' and for that purpose evidence was
rightly recorded by the Tribunal and acted upon by the High
Court.
This Court accordingly confirmed the view of the High
[1965]
IS. C.R. 316.
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
-;
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
l!HAIYA RAM V. ANlR.UDH l'ATAR (Shalz, J.J
bi 5
Court.
The decision in this case lends no support to the contenUQI\ that ev1uencc 1s madm1ssible tor the purpose of showmg
wnat an entry m the l'res1denua1 Orner was mtended to mean.
The next case in U1e oruer oi sequence
is Bhaiya/al v.
Hank1shan Singh and Uthers. (1)
ln that case an election to a
S1a1e Leg1slawre was challenged on rue ground that tile successful
canamate oe10nged to the Dohm· caste which was not recognised
as ScheOuled Caste tor the district in question,
and on that
grouna the successful candidate was not competent to stand for
eiecuon.
The .Elecuon Tribunal declared the election iinvalid
and the finding was confirmed on appeal by the High Court. lt
was held by ttus Court tilat thi< plea that tlle appeilant is not
a Chamar, and as sucll, he could not claun the status at a
Chama/' elalllling that he belonged to Donar Caste which is a
sub-caste of the C/zamar caste and that an enquiry of the kind
would not be permissible having regard to the provisions contained in Art. 341 of the Constitution.
lt was urged in that case
that Chamars were recognised as a Scheduled Caste but not the
Dohar.
The successful candidate was, it was found, a Dolzar
and was not a Clzamar.
The Court declined to allow a plea to
be raised that Dohars were in some areas recognised as a subcaste ol Clwmars.
Th~ contention was plainly futile, once it
was held that the candidate was not a Chamur in the constituency
to which the Order related and Dc-hars were not a Scheduied
Caste.
The Court observed that in specifying castes, races or
tribes under Art. 341 of the Constitution, the Presider:t had been
expressly authorised to limit the notification to
parts
of
or
groups within the caste, race or tribe, and the President' may
well come to the conclusion that not the whole caste, race, or tribe,
but parts of or groups within tJ:i.em should be specified.
Similarly the President can specify castes, races or tribes or parts thereof
in relation not only to the entire State, but in relation to the parts
of the State where he is satisfied that the examination of the
social and educational backwardness o-' the races, caste or tribe
justifies such specification.
On that view the Court upheld the
decision of the Hi~h Court 1ha1 the successful candidate who was
a Dohar was not, ~in the Constituency from which the case arose
a Chamar within the meaning of the
Constitution
(Scheduled
Castes) Order, 1950.
H
In Laxman Siddappa Naik v. Kallimani Chaniappa Jamappanna & Ors.(') an unsuccessfql candidate for election to the
Mysore Legislative Assembly for a seat reserved for a member of
the Scheduled Tribes filecl an election petition alleging that the
other three candidat<?s "c11' Ji<"dar.1
a
tribe
not specified in
Part VIII para 2 of the Constitulion (Scheduled Tribes) Order,
ti) [1965) 2 S.C.R. 877.
(c) [1968] 2 S.C.R. 805.
816
SUPREME COURT REPOR1S
[1971] l S.C.R.
1950. The successful candidate asserted that he was a Nayaka
A
aind the Nayakas were also called Bedars.
The High Court held
that there was no Nayaka in the area and successful candidate
was a Bedar.
This Court allowed the appeal and. held that
N ayakas were to be found not only in the districts of Mysore but
also in Maharashtra and Rajasthan.
"This tribal commu1nity was
therefore wide-spread" and it was not possible to say that there . B
was no N ayaka in the district to which the appellant belonged.
A bare assertion by the election petitioner that the appellant was
a Bedar did not suffice to displace the acceptance of the nomination paper or the claim of the appellant that he was a Nayaka: ·
In the pres~nt case it is not the contention of the first respondent that he was a Patar-member of a tribe which is .not 'C
Munda, but he was recognized as a Munda.
His case was that
in his tribe he was <is a M1111da Patar.
Attention may also be directed to a recent judgment of this
Court ~n Dina v. Narayan Singh & Anr. (1)
ln that case Dina
Narnavare was declared elected to the Maharashtra Legislative . D
Assembly from tlie Armori Scheduled Tribes constituency.
His ·
election was set aside on the application filed by the first respondent on the ground that Dina was not eligible to stand. as a
candidate from a reserved cqnstituency.
Dina had declared in
his nomination paper that he was a member of the Gond (Mana)
caste and the same was a Scheduled Tribe in Ta!uka Gadchiroli
of District Chanda in the Maharashtra State and being a Gond
though styled as Mana he was entitled to the privileges. -given by
the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.
This Court
on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that
there was no sub-tribe o.f Maratha Manas among the Gonds.
It was found that the customs, manners, forms of worship and
dress of the members of the Maratha Mana community were all
different from the customs, manners, form of worship and dress
of the Gonds.
In that view the Court held that Mana community
am0ingst the Marathas ~uld not be regarded as Gond and the
appellant was not entitled to stand for -election as Gond.
The
decision clearly decides that the name by which a tribe or subt~ibe is known is not decisive.
Even if the tribe of a person is
different from the name included in the Order issued by the
President, it may be show1n that the name is included ·in the
Order is a general name applicable to sub-tribes.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
(2) C. A. No. 1622 of 1957 uooidod on May, 21, 1968.
E
F
G
H