Case: K.Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy &amp; Ors

1. This is an appeal against a judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirming an order of the Election Tribunal Hyderabad by which the Tribunal dismissed an election petition filed by the present appellant. By that petition this appellant sought a declaration that the election of three persons, the present respondent, Seetharam Reddy, one Anandam and M. Ataur Rahman be declared void and that he, the petitioner, be declared as duly elected to the Legislative Council of the Andhra Pradesh from Telangana Graduates Constituency. In this appeal we are no. longer concerned with the questions of validity of elections of Mr. Anandam or Mr. M. Ataur Rahman but only with that of the respondent Seetharam Reddy1. This is an appeal against a judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirming an order of the Election Tribunal Hyderabad by which the Tribunal dismissed an election petition filed by the present appellant. By that petition this appellant sought a declaration that the election of three persons, the present respondent, Seetharam Reddy, one Anandam and M. Ataur Rahman be declared void and that he, the petitioner, be declared as duly elected to the Legislative Council of the Andhra Pradesh from Telangana Graduates Constituency. In this appeal we are no. longer concerned with the questions of validity of elections of Mr. Anandam or Mr. M. Ataur Rahman but only with that of the respondent Seetharam Reddy2. The appellant challenges the decision of the High Court mainly on the ground that in reaching its conclusion on the vital question of the age of Seetharam Reddy on the date of election the High Court took into consideration evidence which was not legally available for such consideration.3. Though a large number of objections were raised in the petition to contest the validity of Seetharam Reddys election, only four of them were ultimately pressed before the Election Tribunal, viz, (1) That Seetharam Reddy was disqualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Council under Art. 173 (b) of the Constitution his age being below 30 years on the relevant date; (2) That the election was vitiated by undue influence exercised on the voters by some Ministers of the State of Andhra Pradesh; (3) That the secrecy of the ballot was not maintained and (4) That the election was void on account of improper deletion of names of voters in the final list4. All these objections were rejected by the Election Tribunal which accordingly dismissed the petition. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the findings of the Election Tribunal on all these points and dismissed the appeal5. Faced with the position that the correctness of these findings which are all finding of facts is not open to challenge before this Court in this appeal by special leave, the appellant has raised the contention that the High Courts decision on the question of age of Seetharam Reddy was vitiated by the error of law in that additional evidence was admitted and considered by the High Court without complying with the provisions of law.

Reasoning:
8. The High Court also came to the same conclusion on this issue as regards Seetharam Reddys age. In coming to this conclusion it has relied not only on the vakalatnama Ex. R-3 mentioned above but also on four other documents. viz, Exs. R-5 and R-6, which the Tribunal rejected as unreliable and Exs. R-19 and R-20 which were not tendered in evidence before the Tribunal but came before the High Court is additional evidence. The appellant contends that the High Court acted without jurisdiction in admitting additional evidence9. We are clearly of opinion that even if it was found that the High Court erred in taking the additional evidence that would not be a case of lack of jurisdiction but would be an error in the exercise of jurisdictionWe are aware of no. case in which the correctness of this view has been doubted. It is worth noticing that when the 1908 Code was framed and O. 41 R. 27 took the place of the old S. 568, the legislature was content to leave the provision as it was and did not think it necessary to say anything to make the requirement of recording reasons imperative. It is true that the word shall is used in R. 27(2), but that by itself does not make it mandatory. We are therefore of opinion that the omission of the High Court to record reasons for allowing additional evidence does not vitiate such admission16. In view of what the High Court has stated in this passage it is not possible to say that the High Court made the order for admission of additional evidence without applying its mind. It seems clear that High Court thought, on a consideration of the evidence, in the light of the arguments that had been addressed already before it that it would assist them to arrive at the truth on the question of Seetharam Reddys age if the entries in the admission registers of the school were made available. It was vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was such a volume of evidence before the High Court that it could not be seriously suggested that the Court required any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment. The requirement, it has to be remembered, was the requirement of the High Court, and it will not be right for us to examine the evidence to find out whether we would have required such additional evidence to enable us to pronounce judgment. Apart from this, it is well to remember that the appellate court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment but also for any other substantial cause. There may well be cases where even though the court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of the record as it is, and so, it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment, it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Such a case will be one for allowing additional evidence for any other substantial cause under R. 27 (1) (b) of the Code19. We are satisfied that in the present case the High Court allowed additional evidence to be admitted as it required such evidence either to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause within the meaning of R. 27 (1) (b) of O. 41 of the Code. The contention that the decision of the High Court on the question of the respondents age was vitiated by reason of it being based on inadmissible evidence, must therefore fail21. On the principle laid down in Jagarnath Pershad v. Hanuman Pershad 36 Ind App 221 (PC) that when additional evidence was taken with the assent of both sides or without objection at the time it was taken, it is not open to a party to complain of it later on, the appellant cannot now be heard to say that the additional evidence was taken in this case in breach of the provisions of law22. There is nothing therefore that would justify us in interfering with the findings of facts on which the High Court based its decision.