Case: Smt. Radha Bai Ananda Rao Vs. S. Suvarna Kumar and Another

Shinghal, J. 1. Appellant Smt. Radha Bai Ananda Rao feel aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court Andhra Pradesh dated September 21, 1978, as her election to the sixth Lok Sabha from the Bhadrachalam (Scheduled Tribes) Parliamentary Constituency has been declared void. She was declared elected on March 21, 1977, but her election was challenged by K. Bapanna Dora, who was one of the contesting candidates at the election, on the ground that she was not a member of a schedules tribe and had wrongly made a declaration in her nomination paper, that she belonged to the Koya scheduled tribe notified by the Presidents order under Article 342(1) of the Constitution to be a scheduled tribe throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant denied the contention of the election petitioner and asserted that she belonged to that tribe. She stated that she had successfully contested the two earlier general elections of 1967 and 1971 also, as a candidate belonging to the koya scheduled tribe. 2. Four issues were framed by the trial Court on March 17, 1978. K. Bapanna Dora however made an application on April 3, 1978 under Section 109(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for leave to withdraw the election petition. That was allowed, and S. Suvarana Kumar was substituted as the election petitioner. The High Court proceeded with the trial of the election petition and ultimately recorded the finding that the appellant did not belong to the koya community, which was a scheduled tribe, that the acceptance of her nomination paper by the Returning Officer was illegal, and that her election was liable to be declared void. It accordingly made the impugned order and awarded costs to the election petitioner. 3. Although four issues were framed for the trial of the election petition, the trial centered round the main question whether the appellant belonged to the koya scheduled tribe mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The schedule to the order specifies that the following shall, inter alia, be a scheduled tribe throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh, - Koya or Goud with its sub-sects - Rajah or Rasha Koyas, Lingadhari Koyas (ordinary), Kottu Koyas, Bhine koya and Rajkoya. We are not concerned with any of the sub-sects mentioned in the order, and the short question for consideration is whether the finding of the High Court that the appellant did not belong to the koya tribe is correct. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have relied mainly on the documentary evidence which consists of the entries in the birth and the school registers and have not challenged the admissibility of any of those documents. 5. We shall first take into consideration the two documents on which reliance, has been placed for showing that the appellant was a doli, and not a koya. The first of those is entry Ex. A4(a) which states that one Radha Bai, daughter of Gourayya of Venkatapuram, who was born on June 15, 1922, was admitted in class I of the school on February 2, 1927. In column 10 of that entry, the religion of Radha Bai has been entered as doli and it has been urged that was sufficient to prove that she was not a koya but was a doli which was not a scheduled tribe at all. The second document is Ex. A3 which is an entry from the Daily Birth Register of the year 1930 of Venkatapuram village showing that the birth of a child to Gourayya was registered on May 14, 1930 and the caste was noted as doli. This entry has also been utilised for the purpose of showing that the appellant did not belong to the koya scheduled tribe as her father was a doli. The appellant has however stated that entry Ex. A4(b), which corresponds to entry Ex. A4(a) except that it is later in point of time inasmuch as it mentions the date of Radha Bais leaving the school as November 3, 1930 does not relate to her. She has in fact stated that she was born in 1927 and not in 1922. But even if it were assumed that Exs. A4(a) and A-3 go to show that the caste or religion of the appellants father was recorded as doli in 1927 and thereafter, in 1930, it has still to be examined whether that was satisfactory evidence to prove that the appellant did not belong to the koya scheduled tribe. We have gone through the other evidence on the record also to arrive at the correct finding. 6. The earliest evidence in the matter is furnished by the document Ex. A4(c) which is an extract the register of admissions and withdrawals of the panchayat school. It shows that Venkataswamy son of Gourayya resident of village Venkatapuram, was admitted the school on June 2, 1924. He was born in June 1919. The exact date of birth could not be read because it was not clear. In Column 10 of the register the religion of Venkataswamy was entered as doli koya. It is not in controversy before us that the entry relates to the appellants elder brother Venkataswamy. The High Court has not given any reason for doubting the evidentiary value of Ex. A4(c), or its correctness. Even so, it has observed in passing that the entries in Exs. A4(a), A4(b), A4(c) and A5(a) establish that Children Gowraiah and his children, namely, the first respondent and her elder brother are dolis. We are constrained to say that it was not permissible for the High Court to take the view that entry Ex. A4(c) could justify the finding that the appellant and her elder brother were dolis and were not koyas. As has been stated, the relevant entry read as doli koya and not as doli. So when it has not been found that the entry was over-written in any respect, or was otherwise suspicious, it goes to prove that, as far back, as June 2, 1924, the appellants elder brother was recorded as doli koya and not merely as doli. 7. In this connection the evidence of M. Bhima Rao, RW 2, who was the Tehsildar of the taluk concerned is relevant. He has categorically stated that there was no such caste as doli and that "amongst the koya people who professionally beat the drums on festive occasions are called Dolya". There is no reason for us to put a different interpretation on the entry Ex. A4(c) and it shows that as far back as June 2, 1924, the appellants brother was recorded as a person belonging to the koya scheduled tribe. 8. Then there is entry Ex. B8 in respect of the same brother (Venkataswamy) of the appellant in the register of admissions and withdrawals of the primary school. It shows that the appellants brother, who was born on June 1, 1919, was again admitted in the school on November 1, 1935, and his religion was recorded as koya. 9. It is therefore well established that right from June 2, 1924, to November 1, 1935 the family of the appellant was recorded as belonging to the koya scheduled tribe. 10. Our attention has been invited to entries Exs. A4(b), B4 and B6, of the school registers to show that the appellant was recorded as doli koya or koya in 1930, 1933 and in 1941, but the High Court has not thought it proper to place reliance on those entries and we have therefore left them out of consideration. 11. We shall proceed to consider the next two entries which relate to the younger sister and brother of the appellant. Entry Ex. B5 admittedly relates to the appellants younger sister Venkatapati and shows that she was admitted in the panchayat school on December 2, 1937 and her religion has been recorded as koya. There is no reason why reliance should not be placed on this entry. Then there is entry Ex. B7 in respect of the appellants brother Narayan which shows that he was admitted in the panchayat school on July 27, 1944 and left it on September 19, 1944, and his religion was also recorded as koya. There is no reason to disbelieve the correctness of this entry also. The High Court has rejected the entries made after 1930 relating to the appellant and her relatives, under the impression that they were made on the advice of her relative Appa Rao who was headmaster of the school for 5 or 6 years. The High Court did not however take notice of that part of the statement of the appellant, which remained unrebutted, where she had stated categorically that Appa Rao was the headmaster of the school during 1938-1942 and could not possibly have anything to do with the entries which were made before 1938 or after 1942. As it is, none of the entries on which we have thought it proper to place reliance for the purpose of examining the correctness of the High Court finding, relates to the period during which Appa Rao was the headmaster of the school and we have no doubt that there was no justification for the High Court to reject the evidentiary value of those documents merely because Appa Rao had once been the headmaster of the school. 12. It would thus appear that documents Ex. A 4(c), B 8, B 5 and B 7, which were recorded during the period June 2, 1924 to September 19, 1944 show that the elder brother of the appellant as well as her younger sister and brother were recorded as belonging to the koya scheduled tribe in the school registers. The appellant was a child when entries Exs. A4(c) and B 8 were made, and she was quite a young girl when entries Exs. B 5 and B 7 were made, and she could not possible have thought that there was any advantage in recording tribe of her brothers and sister as koya during that period, which was long before the issue of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. 13. It may be mentioned that the appellant has placed reliance on the Tehsildars certificate Ex. B 1 that she belonged to the koya scheduled tribe, and entry Ex. B 10 in the National Citizenship Register which was prepared in 1962 showing that she belonged to the koya scheduled tribe. It is not however necessary to refer to them as nothing could possibly turn on them when the other evidence on the record is sufficient to decide the question in controversy. 14. On a consideration of the entire evidence on the record we have, therefore, no doubt that the appellant belonged to the koya scheduled tribe. The contrary finding of the High Court is incorrect and is set aside.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]There is no reason to disbelieve the correctness of this entry also. The High Court has rejected the entries made after 1930 relating to the appellant and her relatives, under the impression that they were made on the advice of her relative Appa Rao who was headmaster of the school for 5 or 6 years. The High Court did not however take notice of that part of the statement of the appellant, which remained unrebutted, where she had stated categorically that Appa Rao was the headmaster of the school during2 and could not possibly have anything to do with the entries which were made before 1938 or after 1942. As it is, none of the entries on which we have thought it proper to place reliance for the purpose of examining the correctness of the High Court finding, relates to the period during which Appa Rao was the headmaster of the school and we have no doubt that there was no justification for the High Court to reject the evidentiary value of those documents merely because Appa Rao had once been the headmaster of the school12. It would thus appear that documents Ex. A 4(c), B 8, B 5 and B 7, which were recorded during the period June 2, 1924 to September 19, 1944 show that the elder brother of the appellant as well as her younger sister and brother were recorded as belonging to the koya scheduled tribe in the school registers. The appellant was a child when entries Exs. A4(c) and B 8 were made, and she was quite a young girl when entries Exs. B 5 and B 7 were made, and she could not possible have thought that there was any advantage in recording tribe of her brothers and sister as koya during that period, which was long before the issue of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 195013. It may be mentioned that the appellant has placed reliance on the Tehsildars certificate Ex. B 1 that she belonged to the koya scheduled tribe, and entry Ex. B 10 in the National Citizenship Register which was prepared in 1962 showing that she belonged to the koya scheduled tribe. It is not however necessary to refer to them as nothing could possibly turn on them when the other evidence on the record is sufficient to decide the question in controversy14. On a consideration of the entire evidence on the record we have, therefore, no doubt that the appellant belonged to the koya scheduled tribe. The contrary finding of the High Court is incorrect and is set aside.