SUSHILA DEVI Vs. BHAGOTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both the appeals relate to the election held for the post of ward member and Chair-person of Municipal Board Kotputali, District Jaipur for the year 2000 and involve similar facts and evidence. Therefore, both the appeals are decided by this single judgment.

(2.) SUSHILA Devi and Bhagoti Devi contested the election for the post of member of Municipality, Kotputali from ward No. 5 in which SUSHILA Devi was declared elected as member of ward No. 5. Smt. Kanta Devi was also elected as ward member from Ward No. 10. After the elections for membership were over, the elections for the Chairman of Municipality Kotputali were held on 22. 8. 2000 in which SUSHILA Devi, Kanta Devi and Smt. Prem Devi contested the elections and SUSHILA Devi was declared elected as Chairman.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful considerations to the rival submissions and perused the impugned order and the material on record. There is no dispute about the legal proposition that burden to prove the fact that elected candidate had not attained the age prescribed by statute lies on the election petitioner. The Apex Court in Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anad Purohit (1), while relying upon the decision in Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narayan Sinha (2), reiterated the above view. However, the party on whom the burden to prove a fact lies can discharge that burden by proving admission made by the opposite party or by producing direct evidence or by producing circumstantial evidence of the fact. In para 12 of the reply to the election petitions filed by Smt. Bhagoti Devi, it has been averred by the appellant that