Appellants- Kedar Pandey
Respondents- Narain Bikram Sah
Decided On: 15/04/1965
Statues Referred-
- Constitution of India
Case Referred-
- Winarts v. Attorney-General
- Munro v. Munro
- Aikman v. Aikman
- Moorhouse v. Lord
- Udny v. Udny
- Doucet v. Geoghegan
Facts:
- Narain was born in Banaras on October 10, 1918 and that the respondent was living in India from 1939 right up to 1949 and even thereafter.
- Narain’s father was domiciled in Nepal.
- Narain Shah was born in Banaras (India), received his education from 1934 to 1938 in India. After 1938 he lived in Ram Nagar (India) and continued to live there after the death of his father his father, Ram Raja, had built a palace in Ram Nagar in 1938-41.
- The High Court further found that long before the year 1949 Narain Raja had acquired a domicile of choice in Indian territory and, therefore, acquired the status of a citizen of India
Issue:
- Whether respondent was citizen of India or not?
- Narain Bikram Sah was a domicile of Nepal, he had ancestral property in barewa
- He is not qualified to be elected as per Art. 173 of the constitution of India
Contentions by Parties-
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Narain Bikram Sah was not duly qualified under Art. 173 of the Constitution of India to be a candidate for election as he was not a citizen of India.
- Narain Bikram Sah, his parents and grand-parents were all born in Nepal and, therefore, on the date of the election, the respondent-Narain Raja-was not qualified to be chosen to fill the Assembly seat for which he had been declared to have been elected.
- Narain Bikram Sah was related to the royal family of Nepal and the father of the respondent-Rama Raja-owned about 43 bighas of land and a house at Barewa in Nepal in which the respondent had a share along with his three other brothers
Respondent’s Arguments
- The election petition was contested by the respondent who said that he was an Indian citizen and there was no disqualification incurred under Art. 173 of the Constitution.
- case of the Narain was that he had lived in India since his birth and that he was a resident of Ramnagar in the district of Champaran and not of Barewa in Nepal.
- The respondent claimed that he was born in Banaras and not at Barewa.
Judgment
The High Court found, on examination of the evidence, that Narain Raja, the respondent before us, was born in Banaras on October 10, 1918 and that the respondent was living in India from 1939 right up to 1949 and even thereafter.
The High Court further found that long before the year 1949 Narain Raja had acquired a domicile of choice in Indian territory and, therefore, acquired the status of a citizen of India both under Art. 5 (a) and (c) of the Constitution. On these findings the High Court took the view that Narain Raja was duly qualified for being elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly and the election petition filed by the appellant-Kedar Pandey – should be dismissed.
Rule of Law-
The conclusive presumption prevents the party against whom it is drawn from disproving the inference about the existence of fact B which is required to be drawn from the proof of fact A.
Conclusion
As it was proved that Narain Bikram Sah was a domicile of India and not Nepal, however his father was a domicile of Nepal but he by birth was a domicile of Banaras India.
High Court took the view that Narain Raja was duly qualified for being elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly.
