# GOKA RAMALINGAM v. BODDU ABRAHAM & ANR

- **Citation:** [1969] 2 S.C.R. 992
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-11-27
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1968
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatullah, G. K. Mitter
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/goka-ramalingam-v-boddu-abraham-anr-4827
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Practice-Election petition-Election to reserved seat from scheduled
caste constituency-Election challenged on the ground that successful candi.
date was converted to Christianity-Petition dismissed-Plea that parents
of successful candidate were converts sought to be raised in Supreme
Court-Belated plea, if should be allowed.
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 cl. (3)--SCope of.
A
B
c
The appellant and respondents were contestants for a reserved seat
ftom 'a scheduled caste c0nstituency for election to the State Legislative
Assembly, and the first respondent was elected.
The election was challenged by the appellant on the ground that the respondent was not a
member of scheduled caste because, he embraced Christianity and professed the Christian religion, 'and therefore, was not eligible to stand for
election for the reserved seat.
During the trial, the High Court summoned a Register, containing the names of all converted Christians of
D
the locality, which was, maintained by the local church. There was no
entry showing that the first respondent was converted to Christianity.
On the issue whether the first respondent was converted to Christianity,
the High Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence held that there
were no proof . of such conversion and dismissed the petition.
In appeal' to this Court, a petition was filed alleging that the Register
contained entries showing that the parents of the first respondent were
E
converted to Christianity and it was prayed that the case should proceed on the plea of conversion to Christianity of the parents of the first
respondent, in place of the original plea that the first respondent himself
was so converted.
HELD : The prayer in the petition could not be granted because : (a)
The plea changed the entire nature of the case and required fresh evidenc~;
(b) it was belated and beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing
F
of election petitions; and (c) the application should have been filed in
the High Court itself, for, the Register was produced in the High Court and
it was inspected by the parties who had thus ample opportunity to discover
the basis for the new plea. [995 D-F]
Under cl. (3) of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, it
would have been sufficient if the appellant pleaded and proved that the
first respondent was a Christian that therefore he was not a Hindu and
G
was not competent to stand for the reserved seat; but he chose to establish
that the first respondent was himself converted to Christianity and failed
to do so. [996 B-C]

## Text

GOKA RAMALINGAM
v.
BODDU ABRAHAM & ANR.
November 27, 1968
(M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. AND G. K. MITTER, J.]
Practice-Election petition-Election to reserved seat from scheduled
caste constituency-Election challenged on the ground that successful candi.
date was converted to Christianity-Petition dismissed-Plea that parents
of successful candidate were converts sought to be raised in Supreme
Court-Belated plea, if should be allowed.
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 cl. (3)--SCope of.
A
B
c
The appellant and respondents were contestants for a reserved seat
ftom 'a scheduled caste c0nstituency for election to the State Legislative
Assembly, and the first respondent was elected.
The election was challenged by the appellant on the ground that the respondent was not a
member of scheduled caste because, he embraced Christianity and professed the Christian religion, 'and therefore, was not eligible to stand for
election for the reserved seat.
During the trial, the High Court summoned a Register, containing the names of all converted Christians of
D
the locality, which was, maintained by the local church. There was no
entry showing that the first respondent was converted to Christianity.
On the issue whether the first respondent was converted to Christianity,
the High Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence held that there
were no proof . of such conversion and dismissed the petition.
In appeal' to this Court, a petition was filed alleging that the Register
contained entries showing that the parents of the first respondent were
E
converted to Christianity and it was prayed that the case should proceed on the plea of conversion to Christianity of the parents of the first
respondent, in place of the original plea that the first respondent himself
was so converted.
HELD : The prayer in the petition could not be granted because : (a)
The plea changed the entire nature of the case and required fresh evidenc~;
(b) it was belated and beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing
F
of election petitions; and (c) the application should have been filed in
the High Court itself, for, the Register was produced in the High Court and
it was inspected by the parties who had thus ample opportunity to discover
the basis for the new plea. [995 D-F]
Under cl. (3) of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, it
would have been sufficient if the appellant pleaded and proved that the
first respondent was a Christian that therefore he was not a Hindu and
G
was not competent to stand for the reserved seat; but he chose to establish
that the first respondent was himself converted to Christianity and failed
to do so. [996 B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil Appeal No. 61 of
1968.
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People
H
Act 1951 from the judgment and order dated August 21, 1967
of tbe Andhra Pradesh High Coun in Election Petition No. 3 of
1967.
'
. '
J
,
•
' ..
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAMALINGAM v. ABRAHAM (Hidayatullah, C.J.)
993
P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for the appellant.
R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, S. C. Agarwal and Asif Ansari, for
respond.ent No. 1.
Tue Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah, C.J. This appeal arises from the decision of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court dated August 21, 1967 by which an
election petition filed by the present appellant Goka Ramalingam
to question the election of the answering respondent Boddu Abraham was dismissed. Tue matter concerns the Cheriyal (Scheduled
Caste) constituency in the election to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly held in February, 1967. Three candidates had
offered themselves .for electioo.
Two of them we have already
named, the third is one Devadanam. The answering respond.ent
obtained 15000 and odd, the appellant-election petitioner 12000
and odd and Devadanam 7000 and odd votes. The election petition was based only on one issue, namely, that the respondents
who had stood for a scheduled caste Reserved seat had "converted
themselves into Christianity long time back and they continue to
profess the said religion Christianity even today." Under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, it is provided as follows:
"(2) Subject to the provisions of this Order, the castes,
races or tribes or parts of, or groups within, castes or
tribes, specified in Parts I to XIII of the Schedule to this
Order shall, in relation to the States to which those
parts respectively relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes so far as regards members thereof resident in the localities specified in relation to them nu those Parts of that
Schedule.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 2, no person who professes a religion different
from the Hindu or the Sikh religion shall be deemed
to be a member of a Scheduled Caste."
It would therefore appear that if the answering respondent and
Devadanam were not members of a named scheduled caste (in
this case the Madiga caste) they were not eligible to stand for
election for the Reserved Seat. Tue case as put forward in the
High Court was that these two candidates had themselves got
converted into Christianity a long time ago and that they did not
therefore profess Hindu religion although in the plea it is stated
affirmatively that they profess Christian religion. The case went
to trial on this plea and the issues framed were as follows :
"l. Whether the respondents who acjmittedly once
belonged to 'Madiga' community embraced Christianity
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 2 S.C.R,
and professed the religion of Christianity at the tim.e
of election and hence respondent No. 1 was not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat in the Assembly of
the State as per s. 5(a) read with Rule (3) of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 (C.O. 19 dated
10-8-59)?
2. Whether the nomination papers of both the respondents were improperly received and as a result thereof the result of the election has been materially affected?
A
B
•
3. What is the effect of admission of respondent 2
1
in his W.S. as to his status on this election petition?"
c
Evidence was led ·to prove that the answering respondent was
converted to Christianity. This evidence was not accepted by the
High Court.
As regards the other respondent, he went out of
the fight admitting that he was a Christian and nothing more need ·
be said of him.
It appears that while this case was going on, lthe learned
Judge was informed that a Register of all converted Christians
was maintained by the church.
He accordingly sent for the
Register and marked it as Ex. C-1. In the judgment the learned
Judge gives his order pertaining to this action. It reads as follows:
"I may mention here that since it came out in the
evidence of R.W. 2 that the names of all conv1:rts to
Christianity within the jurisdiction of Hanumakonda
Baptist Mission would be entered in the General Record
of the Field Association, Hanumakonda, aittd that register was filed as an exhibit in a suit pending in the District Court at W arangal, I summoned it and marked it
as Ex. C-1. I gave opportunity for the lawyers appearing on both sides to inspect the register and mak1: their
submissions.
The entries relating to Dharmasangaram
village are to be found in pages 50 to 52 and 182. It
is true that the name of the 1st respondent is not found
in this Record; but since this register does not appear
to be an exhaustive and complete record of all the
Christians in that area, I do not propose to rely on the
entries in this register for any purpose."
·
. The !legister w~s inspec:ted by the parties. They went into it
v.:ith ~ view .to findmi; out whether the answering respondent and
his wife Chinna Mariamma had been converted or not. There
was no entry showing that they had been so converted. It appears, however, that the Register did contain two entries showD
E
G
H
•
•
•
•
•
I -
A
R
c
D
E
F
G
ll
RAMALINGAM v. ABRAHAM (Hidayatullah, C.J.)
995
ing the conversion of Boddu Kurnaraiah and China Buchamrna
who are now said to be the father and mother of answering
respondent. An affidavit has also been filed from the Pastor of
the Church in which it is stated that these entries· refer to the
parents of the answering respondent. Even though the Register
was in court ahd was open to inspection of the parties, care was
not taken to discover these two names, with the result that the
case was fought on the original plea and issue that the answering
respondent was converted to Christianity. That apparently was
not a fact, because if he was born of Christian parents he did
not need conversion.
The fact, however, is only alleged now
before us and has not been subjected to proof.
The question therefore is whether in view of this fresh evidence, we should allow this appeal. On a proper consideration
of the entire matter we are of opinion that we cannot. An application was made to us asking for amendment of the plea of
conversion of the answering respondent into one of conversion
of his parents to Christianity.
We have been unable to allow
that petition, because it changes the nature of the case requiring
fresh evidence to be taken and is filed also beyond the period of
limitation prescribed for filing of election petitions. That it does
change the entire nature of the case is obvious, because instead
of the plea that the answering respondent was converted to Christianity, it is now sought to be substituted a plea that the
parents were converted to Christianity. We should have understood such an application being made in the Court of trial when
the Register was produced, because ·that might have been a
matter not within the knowledge of the election petitioner till
the register ·was produced.
But after the Register had been
produced and it lay in the Court for nearly an year and had
been inspected by the answering respondent, it does not lie in
his mouth to say that he had no notice of the true facts.
He
had notice of them because he had the register with him and
the names of the alleged parents of the answering respondent
are clearly mentioned therein. In fact the register seems to be a
well-kept document written extremely legibly and there was no
danger of any name having been overlooked. Therefore we must
consider this as a belated plea and reject it on the two grounds
already mentioned by us .
~nee . the application for amendment is out the way, the
ques!Jon 1s whether the appeal of the election petitioner can be
otherwise sustained. Mr. Ram Reddy contended that under cl.
(3) of the Presidential Order, it is sufficient to prove that if a
person professes religion other than Hinduism or Sikhism it disentitles him to contest for a reserved seat. He says that for
whatever reason the answering respondent be regarded as a
996
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 2 S.C.R.
Christiam today or at any rate at the time he filed his nomination
paper, he would be incompetent to s'.ai;id for the electi~n f~om
the reserved seat if he professed a rehg1on other than Hmdmsm
or Sikhism.
In otber words, he wants to extract from the plea
and tbe issue a very much narrower field for enquiry, namely,
that the answering respondent was not a Hindu on that date.
This would have been a proper plea to take in the first instance.
It is because of clumsy blundering that tbe petitiouer undertook
a much greater burden than tbe law required him to take. He
should have pleaded only that the returned candidate was a Christian on tbe date he filed his nomination paper and tberefore was
not a Hindu and was not competent to stand for tbe Reserved
·Seat. Instead he proceeded to demonstrate through his plea and
his evidence tbat the returned candidate was himself converted
to Christianity and failed. In this view of the matter we do not
think that we should allow him to change his front and narrow
the field of enquiry to one which he should have adopted in the
first ins~ance. Not having done so, we think that it is too late
for him to change his case now.
For these reasons, we are
constrained to dismiss the appeal. We may say that it is an odd
situation, because probably a
Christian occupies a Reserved
Seat, but this is the result of the vagaries of litigation which
have to be carried on according to rules. The rules do not permit us to give relief where the party himself is at fault in making
a wrong plea and in not making the right plea in time. But in
the circumstances of tbe case, we think tbat the parties should be
directed to bear their costs throughout.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
A
B
c
•
D
E
'