RAJINDRA KUMAR Vs. CHANDRA NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of the Allahabad High court dismissing a petition filed by the defeated candidate who is the appellant before us challenging the election of the returned candidate respondent Chandra Narain Singh-to the Utar Prdesh Legislative Assembly from the Charkhari constituency in the district of Hamirpur.

(2.) In the mid-term poll held in the State of Uttar Pradesh the appellant contested the above seat along with the respondents including respondent No. 1 In all 11 nominations were made but four were withdrawn within the specified period, The contest took place between the remaining seven candidates. Respondent No. 1 was declared elected by a margin of 324 votes It may be mentioned that even after the decision of the High court on the various issues respondent No. 1 had polled more than 200 votes in excess of the votes cast in favour of the appellant. Various pleas were taken in the High court on which 14 issues were framed. We are concerned in the present appeal with issue No. 1 alone. That issue was in the following terms:

(3.) The first submission on behalf of the appellant is that respondent No. 1did not deliberately state date of his birth in the affidavit in reply filed before the Returning Officer because he wanted to create false evidence. Before the High court four types of evidence were adduced by the parties. The first was the oral evidence the second entries in the Kutumb register maintained by the Gaon Sabha ; the third, entries in the school records and the fourth, birth certificate. The High court did not rightly, place much reliance on the oral evidence. As regards the Kutumb register the original is kept in Kankua to Which place respondent No. 1 belongs and it is kept in the Block Development Office. Ext. A-8 is a certified extract taken from the original Kutumb register Ext. 1. The copy shows that one Chandra Narain Singh was born on 5/11/1942 but as pointed out by the High court the figure of the year 1942 is difficult to decipher in the original register. In the copy itself it is written that the month is doubtful. Karori Lal, R. W. 2 who produced these documents stated that the register had been given to him by respondent No. 1 and it was on the latter telling him that he was born in the year 1942 that he issued the copy. There is a discrepancy in the copy of the Kutumb register maintained in the Block Development Office inasmuch as the date of birth of respondent is shown as 5/12/1945 in it. The High court rightly did not place any reliance on Ext. A-8 because apart from the matters pointed out the Kutumb register had been prepared for the first time in 1955 and could have little or no evidentiary value.