JOSHNA GOUDA versus BRUNDABAN GOUDA & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 464 · Decided: 31-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 464 
JOSHNA GOUDA 
v. 
BRUNDABAN GOUDA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1191 of 2012) 
JANUARY 31, 2012 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964: s.31 rlw s.34 - Gram 
Panchayat elections - Election to the post of Sarpanch -
C Election petition filed u/s.31 rlw s.34 on the ground that the 
returning candidate was not qualified to contest the election 
- Election petitioner prayed for setting aside the election of 
the returning candidate and also prayed that petitioner be 
declared duly elected - According to petitioner, the returning 
D candidate had not attained the age of 21 years on the relevant 
date since the date of birth of the appellant was 20. 6. 1986 and 
not 7. 7.1985- Courts below held that date of birth of returning 
candidate was 20.6.1986 - On appeal, held: The fact that 
returning candidate failed to prove her date of birth to be 
E 7. 7.1985 would not automatically lead to conclusion that the 
assertion of election petitioner that the actual date of birth of 
returning candidate was 20. 6. 1986 was proved - Burden to 
prove that returning candidate was born on 20.6.1986 rested 
on the election petitioner which he failed to discharge -
F Although there was inconsistency in the evidence of returning 
candidate regarding her age, however her statement that she 
was 10 years olq on 10.1.1996 could not be treated as an 
admission that her date of birth was 20. 6. 1986 - An admission 
must be clear and unambiguous in order that such an 
admission should relieve the opponent of burden of proof of 
G the fact said to have been admitted - Prayer for declaration 
in favour of election petitioner, therefore did not survive -
Evidence - Election laws. 
The election to the post of Sarpanch was held in 
H 
464 
JOSHNA GOUDA v. BRUNDABAN GOUDA & ANR. 
465 
2007. The appellant and the first respondent contested 
A 
and the appellant was declared elected. The first 
respondent filed election petition under Section 31 read 
with Section 34 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 
on the ground that the appellant was not qualified to 
contest the election. The first respondent prayed for 
B 
setting aside the election of the appellant and also prayed 
that he be declared duly elected. According to the 
respondent, the appellant had not attained the age of 21 
years on the relevant date since the date of birth of the 
appellant was 20.6.1986 and not 7.7.1985. The election c 
petition was allowed and on appeal upheld by the District 
Court. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High 
Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the 
ground that the trial court had held that date of birth of 
the appellant was 20.6.1986 mainly on the basis of 0 
School Admission Register, Ext.5, the relevant entry of 
which was Ext.5/A, the Admission Form Ext.6 and the 
Transfer Certificate of the appellant Ext. 7; that although 
the said documents were admitted in evidence without 
any objection before the trial court, however, mere proof E 
of the exhibits did not mean that the content of the said 
exhibits was also proved and that it was the duty of the 
opposite party to prove the contents of those documents. 
The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the 
High Court. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court did not record any 
conclusive finding regarding the probative value of the 
contents of exhibits 5, SA or exhibit 7, but went on to G 
examine the evidence adduced by the appellant and 
found that the said material did not lend support to the 
case of the appellant and therefore the entry E.5/A made 
in Ext. 5 was true. Exts. A to H were documents 
produced by the appellant in support of her claim that her 
H 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
{2012] 1.S.C.R. 
A. actual date of birth was 7.7.1985 but not 20.$.1.986, as 
contended by the first rel!'pondent. Exts. A and H were 
voters lists of the year 2007 an.d 2_Q08 respectively. The 
High Court had observed that both the documents were 
prepared later in point of time tQ the filing of the 
B nomination papers in the election in qU'1$tion and also 
they did not reflect the date of birth o! the appellant. 
Sir:nilarly, Ext. 0 was a horoscope aUeged to be that.of: ttie I 
appellant The High.Court Qpined that the said d0cumeot 
was righUy not re,Ued upon. ~t. E was a ~ertificate of diilte 
c 
o~,birth issued under the provisions otttae Regi$tratjon 
of ~irths and Deaths Act showing the date of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.