BHAIYA RAM MUNDA versus ANIRUDH PATAR & ORS.

BHAIYA RAM MUNDA

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 ·excludcd-Effect of adniission by uieniber of ScheduJ£'d Tribe that he was not 111e1n-ber 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 schedul-ed tribe, but not Patar. The first respondent was Patar. He was declared elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from scheduled tribes constitu-ency. The appellant, who was an unsuccessful candidate, filed an elec-tion petition tor setting aside the election on the ground that the first res-;>ondent was not member of scheduled tribe. The High Co4rt dismissed the petition holding that the first respondent •v:is Munda and was hence member o~ 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 case was not that Patars arc distinct co1nn1unity who arc regard1~d as 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, re-ferred ft.

(2) Whether particular person is member of scheduled tribe so declared by the President is essentially question of law. Though an adn1ission made hy him expressly or hy in1plication that he is not memher of scheduled trihc i:;; evidence against hitn in an election petition. tho evidence is not conclusive. [808 B-C'I

(~j Jf n1en1bcr of scheduled tribe, tran~fers property by deed in whiah he describes himself to be not 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 member of scheduled tribe. It could not be said, on that groun\j alone, that the tra~sferor was not member of scheduled tribe or \<US estopped from settmg up that status. [808 D-EI

( 4) The e>idcncc in the case established that Patars arc sub-tribe 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

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 can-not be on_ that account alone he excluded from the general heading of Munda. [813 G-H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2039 of 1969.

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 respon-dent No. I.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by At the "mid-term elections" held

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 Assem-bly 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 member of 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 seat in the Legislative Assembly of Bihar from reserved consti-tuency for scheduled tribes. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the 1st respondent was member of 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 Represen-tation 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 seat in the Legislative Assembly of State-unless-

(a) in the case of seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes or for the Scheduled Tribes of that State, he is member of ainy of those castes ·or of thos~ tribes, ~s the case may be, and is an

elector for any Assembly constituency in that State;

• • • • *"

Article 342 of the Constitution, insofar as it is relevant, provides :

"(!) The President may with respect to any State ll or Union territory, . . . by public noti-fication, 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 notificrr-tion issued under clause ( 1) any tribe or tribal com-munity or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subse-n quent 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 respective-ly relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes so far as regards members thereof resident in the localities speci-fied 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 cer-tain 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 con-tended 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 belong-inq to various ki/is as Mun1as, or pqfor Munda<. Mahali Munda<. Taman'as, Bunduars and Maranf! Munda, and others. He con-tends that he does not cease to be Munda merely because his familv name is Patar.

The aooellant raised two ar~utrn'tnts in supoort of his peti-tion-(!) that Pqtars ar~ not Munda<. and (2) !liat even if

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 Munda.

Considerable evidence oral and documentary was tendered before the High Court. In support of his case the appellant relied upon-( I) sale deed executed by the 1st respondent on January 11, 1969 which recited that the 1st respondent did not claim the status of member of Scheduled Tribe; (2) entries in the revenue records and ( 3) oral evidence of wiwsses who deposed that the 1st respondent was not Munda.

tendered

In support of his case the 1st respondent relied upon-( I) judgment of the High Court of Patna declaring that Palars are Mundas; (2) Khatian entries in which Patars were entered as Mundas; (3) 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 Munda.

The name of the first respondent was entered in the voters list as member of Scheduled Tribe. The first respondent stood as candidate· for election to the Bihar State Legislative Assemb[1]y in 1962, and was elected from the Scheduled Tribe Cl tStituencv. Nomination was filed by him at that election as 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 Patar was elect-ed as member of the Parliament to reserved seat from u constituencv in the Bihar Stale was member of the Scheduled Tribe. ,

The first question to be determined is whether Patars are not Munda.~ : The apuellant placed strong reliance upon 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 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. deed evMencing sale of land pres~nted for registration by member of Scheduled Tribe

sos

could not be registered unless the sale was sanctioned by the 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 particular person is member of 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 member of 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 Commis-sioner 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 member of Scheduled Tribe, he will not on that account 'be dise.ntitled to claim the status of member of schedule tribe. The transact:ons of sale may be void, but it cannot be said, relying on that ground alone, that the transferor was not member of 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 tribe distinct from Mundas.

The oral evidence led on behalf of the appellant is uncon-vincing. Faud Singh Munda P. W. I asserted that Patras are not branch of the Munda Tribe, but they are 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

pertormed the P11ja. It appeared that he had not much informa-tion even about Munda customs and ceremonies. The statement of Gandharb Singh Munda P.W. 2 in examina-tion-in-chief was similar to the testimony of P.W. I. In cross-examination the witness stated that M11ndas were 1not Gonds but they were ''a separate caste" and that he had never attended 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 Brahmin) stated that there were Mrmdas in Tamar villages; that his next door neighbour was 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 · 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 respon-F. dent was 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. reli-ance could not be placed upon the testimonv c.f this witness. We see no reason to disa.gree with it. ·

P.W. 6 is the apoellant himself. stated hv P.W. 1. P.W. 2 and P.W. 5. do not helon.g to Scheduled Tribe.

He repeated what was He asserted that Patars He admitted however that

he had never attended any ccrenlllny of marriage or S/Jratlh or any omer !unction 1n 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!, 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 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. is the judgment delivered by Ahmad, J .. o.f the Patna Hi~h Court in 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 Patar but 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 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 title and not 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 Patar and that his

present wife was also Patar. In cross-examination he admit-ted 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 I) 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 bet-F ween 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 renewed anthropologist. He has made 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,

Dr. Sarat Chandra Roy in his publication "M11ndas and this Country" at p. 400 has observed :

'The Af1111da ti:ibc is divided into 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 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 con-cenned. Thus, there can now be no valid marriages, according to M1111da custom, bctwce;1 Munda and the member o( any other 'Kolarian' tribe, such as the Santa/.1·, . . . . ''

Dr. Sarat Chandra Roy has then referred to the various tribes known as Blwmij-Mundas, Kh'mgars and observed :

sub-

"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 younger branch, the Maha/i Mundako and the Kompat 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 latter." ,

The author then stated at p. 41

"Jn Tamar area the social stratification among the Munda has reached 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 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 are the M1111dari who are Munda tenants. Tntermarria~e between Mundari and the above men-H ti?ned. fo~r' classes !s wel! nigh impossible due to great dtspanty m economic and social status. At the bottom

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 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 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 Maha Ii is 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 member of the Scheduled Tribe. He was elected in 1962 from scheduled tribe constitue,ncy. He again contested the elections from that constituency in 1967 but he was defeat-ed. It is only in 1969 when at the .fresh elections that he contest-ed the seat and was declared elected when an objection . was raised that he did not belong tn scheduled tribe. On consi-deration of all the evidence we are of the view that Patars are sub-tribe of M1111da.1 an,! that they arc not different from M1111das.The alternative argument advanced by counsel for the appel-lant 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 indicat-ed that l'atars who are not mentioned therein are not Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of the Order. There is however ;no

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 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 Scheduled Castes constituency claimed to belong to the Bhovi caste which was one of the Scheduled Castes mentioned in the Constituti0in ( Sche-duled 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 sub-caste of the Voddar caste and as M did inot belong to the Bhovi sub-caste 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 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

Court. The decision in this case lends no support to the conten-UQI\ 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 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 Chamar, and as sucll, he could not claun the status at Chama/' elalllling that he belonged to Donar Caste which is sub-caste of the C/zamar caste and that an enquiry of the kind would not be permissible having regard to the provisions contain-ed in Art. 341 of the Constitution. lt was urged in that case that Chamars were recognised as Scheduled Caste but not the Dohar. The successful candidate was, it was found, Dolzar and was not Clzamar. The Court declined to allow plea to be raised that Dohars were in some areas recognised as sub-caste ol Clwmars. Th~ contention was plainly futile, once it was held that the candidate was not Chamur in the constituency to which the Order related and Dc-hars were not 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. Similar-ly 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 Dohar was not, ~in the Constituency from which the case arose Chamar within the meaning of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. In Laxman Siddappa Naik v. Kallimani Chaniappa Jamap-panna & Ors.(') an unsuccessfql candidate for election to the Mysore Legislative Assembly for seat reserved for member of the Scheduled Tribes filecl an election petition alleging that the other three candidat<?s "c11' Ji<"dar.1 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.

1950. The successful candidate asserted that he was Nayaka aind the Nayakas were also called Bedars. The High Court held that there was no Nayaka in the area and successful candidate was 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 . was no N ayaka in the district to which the appellant belonged. bare assertion by the election petitioner that the appellant was Bedar did not suffice to displace the acceptance of the nomina-tion paper or the claim of the appellant that he was Nayaka: ·

In the pres~nt case it is not the contention of the first res-pondent that he was Patar-member of tribe which is .not 'C Munda, but he was recognized as Munda. His case was that in his tribe he was <is M1111da Patar.

Attention may also be directed to recent judgment of this Court ~n Dina v. Narayan Singh & Anr. (1) ln that case Dina Narnavare was declared elected to the Maharashtra Legislative . Assembly from tlie Armori Scheduled Tribes constituency. His · election was set aside on the application filed by the first respon-dent on the ground that Dina was not eligible to stand. as candidate from reserved cqnstituency. Dina had declared in his nomination paper that he was member of the Gond (Mana) caste and the same was Scheduled Tribe in Ta!uka Gadchiroli of District Chanda in the Maharashtra State and being Gond though styled as Mana he was entitled to the privileges. -given by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. This Court on 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 tribe or sub-t~ibe is known is not decisive. Even if the tribe of 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 general name applicable to sub-tribes.

The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.