MOHD. ABDULLAH AZAM KHAN v. NAWAB KAZIM ALI KHAN

): When any fact is especially within the knowledge of a party, the burden of proving it lies upon that party – The term “especially” means facts which are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of a person – This rule cannot apply when the fact is such as to be capable of being known also by persons other than the party – In the instant case, respondent established from the documentary evidence which belongs to the appellant that, from day one appellant has shown his date of birth as 1st January, 1993 not just in his academic record but also in the birth certificate obtained from Nagar Palika, Rampur in the year 2012 – This could have been possible only when the relevant documentary evidence was available with the competent authority in the office of Nagar Palika, Rampur – Since the documents were issued from the office of the public officers based on the relevant data made available by the appellant himself, there was sufficient 391 A B C D E F G H 392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 12 S.C.R. probative value, as required u/s.35 of the Evidence Act – Merely because the same was later on cancelled by the appellant, it may not lose its evidentiary value – Date of birth of appellant throughout in his records is 1st January, 1993 and only in the year 2015 when he became keen to enter into active politics, DW-5- his mother, submitted an application before Nagar Nigam, Lucknow for the first time on 17th January, 2015, claiming that appellant was born on 30th September 1990 – Procedure prescribed u/s.13(3) of the Act, 1969 was not followed by competent authority at Nagar Nigam, Lucknow while issuing fresh certificate of date of birth on 21st January, 2015 – No probative value could have been attached to documentary evidence obtained from the Queen Mary’s Hospital, Lucknow, as a foundation on which the birth certificate was issued on 21st January 2015 by Nagar Nigam, Lucknow – Impugned judgment of High Court accordingly upheld – Held (per B.V. Nagarathna, J.) (Concurring) : As per s.

101, the burden of proving a fact always lies upon the party who substantially asserts the affirmative and until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case – Burden to prove documents lie on plaintiff alone as onus is always on the person asserting a proposition or a fact – Once the plaintiff discharges the initial burden of prove and makes out a case which entitles him to relief, in terms of s. 102, the onus shifts to the defendants to prove those circumstances which would disentitle the plaintiff of the relief – However once the evidence has been led by the contesting parties, abstract considerations of onus are out of place and truth or otherwise must always be adjudged on the basis of evidence led by the parties – s. 106 is an exception to the general rule and it stipulates that when a fact to be proved is peculiarly within the knowledge of a party, it is for him to prove it – In an election petition, the initial burden to prove determination of age of returned candidate lies on the petitioner, however, burden lies on the respondent to prove facts within his special knowledge – In the present case, despite the voluminous oral and documentary evidence, the appellant has been unable to prove the fact that he was born on 30.09.1990 – Consequently, he was not 25 years old at the time of filing the nomination – Election of the appellant to state legislative assembly set aside – Evidence Act, 1972 – ss.

101 to 106, 35 and 21 – Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 – s.13(3) – U.P. A B C D E F G H MOHD. ABDULLAH AZAM KHAN v. NAWAB KAZIM ALI KHAN 393 Registration of the Birth and Death Rules, 2002 – r.9 – Representation of People’s Act, 1951 – ss. 15 and 116 A. A Evidence Act, 1972 – Passports and Visas – Evidentiary value of admitted documents – Whether the information entered in the passport application would amount to proof as to contents of such application, including the date and place of birth entered therein – Held (per B.V. Nagarathna, J.): Great evidentiary value has to be attached to an application submitted to a government establishment or Office, such as a Passport Office and the details entered in such application, together with the documents submitted therewith, must be understood to be tendered by the applicant who signs the application form thereby accepting that the information submitted therein is true and correct and to the best of his knowledge – In the present case, appellant having admitted the fact that his date of birth was 01.01.1993 and place of birth was Rampur, in the application form dated 06.07.2012, it was not open for appellant to subsequently resile from the aforesaid clear admission and contend that he was unaware that an ‘incorrect’ date of birth was recorded in certain documents – Documentary evidence produced by respondent election petitioner has cogent and probative value – This is because the said documents are consistent with the admitted documents of appellant as well as with the admissions made by the appellant himself.

Evidence – Public documents – Probative value of documents made, without following statutory procedure – Whether the Birth Certificate issued on 21.01.2015 by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, was a valid piece of evidence – Held (per B.V. Nagarathna, J.): Birth certificate issued by the Nagar Nigam Lucknow was without following the mandatory provisions of s.13 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969 – s. 13(3) of the 1969 Act and r. 9 of the U.P Registration of Birth and Death Rules, 2002 provides that any birth or death which had not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of First Class or Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of birth and death – In the present case, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, had no jurisdiction to register the birth of the appellant after twenty five years from the date on which he was stated to be born by the issuance of the Birth Certificate on B C D E F G H 394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 12 S.C.R.

21.01.2015 without an order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate as required u/s. 13(3) of the 1969 Act, r/w r. 9(3), 2002 Rules – Moreover, perusal of hospital records such as the Emergency O.T. (E.O.T) register and the Maternity Labour room Register (MLR), shows that same are mired with discrepancies, overwriting and factual inaccuracies which cannot be ignored – Therefore, no weight can be placed on birth certificate issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow on 21.01.2015 which is stated to be issued on strength of an entry made in birth register maintained by hospital – Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 – s.13(3) – U.P. Registration of the Birth and Death Rules, 2002 – r.9. Evidence – Medical Evidence – Evidentiary value of bone ossification test for determining age – Held (per B.V. Nagarathna, J.): Ossification test cannot be solely relied upon as conclusive proof of age – The general rule for determining the age is that it can vary plus or minus two years and that the date of birth of a person is to be determined on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by parties – Report of an ossification test can, at most, be used to corroborate other relevant evidences, oral or documentary. Evidence – Documents of identity – Relevance of Aadhar Card, Voter I.D. Card and Driving License as regards proof of date of birth – Held (per B.V. Nagarathna, J.): Aadhar card is a means of identity and not a proof of date of birth – On facts, the Aadhar Card, Voter I.D. Card and Driving License did not conclusively establish that the appellant was above twenty five years of age on the date of filing his nomination papers or on the date of declaration of result of the legislative assembly election in question. Words and Phrases – Difference between “burden of proof” and “onus of proof” – Explained. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: per Ajay Rastogi, J.

When any fact is especially within the knowledge of a party, the burden of proving it lies upon that party. The term “especially” means facts which are pre-eminently or exceptionally A B C D E F G H MOHD. ABDULLAH AZAM KHAN v. NAWAB KAZIM ALI KHAN 395 within the knowledge of a person. It is true that it cannot apply when the fact is such as to be capable of being known also by persons other than the party. This rule is an exception to the rule of burden of proof. Thus, when a person acts with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving the intention is upon him. The bottom line of the purpose of the Indian Evidence Act is to adopt a procedure that helps to facilitate justice and ultimately what is required is to unearth the truth, to prevail. [Para 19][416- G-H; 417-A]

As per Section 35 of the Evidence Act, a register of record maintained in terms of the statute or by statutory authority in the regular course of business would be a relevant fact. From the evidence on record, the respondent was able to establish from the documentary evidence which belongs to the appellant that consistently from day one he has shown his date of birth as 1st January, 1993 not only in his academic record but also in the birth certificate obtained by him issued on 28th June, 2012 (Ex. A80/ 1) by Nagar Palika, Rampur his date of birth as 1st January, 1993 which could have been possible only when the relevant documentary evidence was available with the competent authority/ in the office of Nagar Palika, Rampur and this fact cannot be ruled out. The respondent has established on record that the date of birth of the appellant is 1st January, 1993 and this fact was not disputed by the appellant that the documents placed and relied upon by the respondent on record are public documents issued by the competent authorities. [Paras 21 and 28][418-B; 425-E- G]

The appellant was not holding any documentary evidence to support his claim prior to being placed on record in the course of election petition from Queen Mary’s Hospital, which was made to be a basis in the year 2015 to seek a duplicate birth certificate of 30th September, 1990. To make it further clear, the duplicate birth certificate was issued by Queen Mary’s Hospital on 21st April, 2015 (Ex.A37) indicating the date of birth of the baby of DW.5 on 30th September, 1990. From this document, it is clear that on 17th January, 2015, on the date when the application was submitted by his mother (DW.5) addressed to the Chief Health A B C D E F G H 396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 12 S.C.R. Officer, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, to obtain the birth certificate of the appellant there was no documentary evidence available in the custody of DW.5 to support that the child was born in the hospital on 30th September, 1990. [Para 34][427-G-H; 428-A-B]

Apart from oral evidence to support the documents placed on record obtained from the Queen Mary’s hospital, it appears that the EOT register where the name of DW.5, mother of the appellant has been shown, entry appears to be partially erased and rest of the page other than the entry relating to DW.5, no change is being reflected from the entire document. [Para 41][432-B]

When the entire evidence is before the Court, it is well settled that the burden of proof becomes immaterial at the given point of time the document made ante litem motam can be relied upon safely when such documents are admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. [Para 42][432-C]

In the instant case, the academic record of the appellant consistently indicates the recorded date of birth of the appellant is 1st January, 1993 and to be more specific before 17th January, 2015, all documents which were released from various public offices under the signatures of public authorities, the date of birth of the appellant has throughout been shown as 1st January, 1993 and as stated by DW.5 (mother of the appellant) and so also the appellant (DW.10) after doing his post-graduation he wanted to come in active politics, application was submitted on 17th January, 2015 for the first time to the office of the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow for obtaining the birth certificate of the appellant based on Queen Mary’s Hospital, Lucknow and the fact is that no documentary evidence was supported along with the application, except the affidavit sworn by DW.5 to the application dated 17th January, 2015 and it is not possible for a common man to get the birth certificate in the existing facts and circumstances, but so far as the appellant is concerned, birth certificate was issued with no loss of time on 21st January, 2015 which was otherwise not possible. [Para 43]

It is also trite law that when both the parties have adduced evidence and that too is in reference to a common question and A B C D E F G H MOHD. ABDULLAH AZAM KHAN v. NAWAB KAZIM ALI KHAN 397 particularly for determination of age, which is the subject matter of dispute and when both the parties have adduced evidence, the question of onus of proof becomes academic. In the instant case, the documents issued by Nagar Palika, Rampur in the year 2012, clearly indicate the recorded date of birth as 1st January, 1993 and which is duly supported by his academic record from Class X onwards at all stages which had been generated only under the appellant’s own signatures or under the authority of the appellant and this in no manner could be disputed. Merely because the same has been later on cancelled by the appellant, it may not lose its evidentiary value. [Paras 46 and 47][432-F-G; 433-A-B]

Section 13(3) of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969, clearly postulates that delayed registration of birth and death are permissible provided a procedure prescribed has been followed after taking orders from the Magistrate and proving the correctness of the date of birth. Although the defence of the appellant is that since his name was already registered in the records of Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, Section 13(3) of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 may not apply, but this submission appears to be misplaced for the reason that on the basis of the birth record maintained by the Nagar Palika, Rampur, the birth certificate was issued to him under the orders of the competent authority on 28th June, 2012, and there cannot be two separate records of birth available in two different municipalities (Rampur/Lucknow) of the same person and in the given situation, no credibility can be attached on the records maintained by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow. The procedure as prescribed under Section 13(3) of the Act, 1969, in the ordinary course of business, was supposed to be adopted by the authorities while a fresh certificate of date of birth was issued to him on 21st January, 2015, which indeed has not been followed by the competent authority by Nagar Nigam, Lucknow. [Para 48][434-H; 435-A-D]

In the instant case, the date of birth of the appellant throughout in his records is 1st January, 1993 and only in the year 2015 when the appellant became keen to enter into active politics, the mother of the appellant (DW-5) submitted an application for the first time on 17th January, 2015, claiming that A B C D E F G H 398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 12 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H the appellant was born on 30th September 1990, and birth certificate may be immediately issued to her and within three days, birth certificate was issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow on 21st January, 2015. In support thereof, the documentary evidence which the appellant has placed on record obtained from the Queen Mary’s Hospital, Lucknow, as a foundation on which the birth certificate has been issued as alleged from the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, in the considered view of this Court, no probative value could have been attached to it. [Para 49][435-D- F] Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and Others [1965] 3 SCR 861; Joshna Gouda v. Brundaban Gouda and Another (2012) 5 SCC 634 : [2012] 1 SCR 464; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (1988) Supp. SCC 604 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 1; Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar (2003) 8 SCC 673 : [2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 802; Rakesh Kumar v. Sunil Kumar (1999) 2 SCC 489 : [1999] 1 SCR 470; Updesh Kumar and Others v. Prithvi Singh and Others (2001) 2 SCC 524 : [2001] 1 SCR 454; State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh (2005) 3 SCC 702 : [2005] 2 SCR 758; Vishnu alias Undrya v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC 283 : [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 474; Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana (2010) 8 SCC 714 : [2010] 9 SCR 50 and Uttamrao Shivdas Jankar v. Ranjitsinh Vijaysinh Mohite Patil (2009) 13 SCC 131 : [2009] 9 SCR 538 – referred to. per B.V Nagarathna, J. (Concurring)

1. As per Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. This section is based on the rule, ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat, which means that the burden of proving a fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it, because a negative is usually incapable of proof. The burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts and until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies MOHD. ABDULLAH AZAM KHAN v. NAWAB KAZIM ALI KHAN 399

has been able to discharge his burden. However, the above rule is subject to the general principle that things admitted need not be proved. The question as to whether burden of proof has been discharged by a party to the lis or not, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the facts are admitted or, if otherwise, sufficient materials have been brought on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a definite conclusion, it is idle to contend that the party on whom the burden of proof lies would still be liable to produce direct evidence. Burden to prove documents lie on plaintiff alone as onus is always on the person asserting a proposition or fact which is not self-evident. [Paras 12.2, 12.3, and 12.4][447-E-H; 448-A-B]

2. Also, there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof. Burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and it never shifts, onus of proof on the other hand, shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. For instance, In a suit for possession based on title, once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant, it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof, the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiffs title. [Para 12.5][448-D-E]

3. Section 106 is an exception to the general rule laid down in Section 101, that the burden of proving a fact rest on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. Section 106 is not intended to relieve any person of that duty or burden but states that when a fact to be proved is peculiarly within the knowledge of a party, it is for him to prove it. It applies to cases where the fact is especially within a party’s knowledge and to none else. The expression ‘especially’ used in Section 106 means facts that are eminently or exceptionally within one’s knowledge. This means a party having personal knowledge of certain facts has a duty to appear as a witness and if he does not go to the witness box, there is a strong presumption against him. In an Election Petition, the initial burden to prove determination of age of returned candidate lies on the petitioner, however, burden A B C D E F G H 400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 12 S.C.R. A lies on the respondent to prove facts within his special knowledge. [Para 12.10][449-C-E]

4. Great evidentiary value has to be attached to an application submitted to a government establishment or Office, such as a Passport Office and the details entered in such application, together with the documents submitted therewith, must be understood to be tendered by the applicant who signs the application form thereby accepting that the information submitted therein is true and correct and to the best of his knowledge. The successful candidate herein, having signed the application form dated 06.07.2012 wherein it has been expressly entered that his date of birth was 01.01.1993 and place of birth was Rampur, cannot, at a later juncture claim that he was unaware, till the year 2015 that his date of birth as per various documents was 01.01.1993 and his place of birth was Lucknow. The fact that the successful candidate self-attested the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Rampur, wherein his date of birth has been recorded as 01.01.1993, would establish that the successful candidate acknowledged, accepted and sought to rely on such fact in order to secure a passport on the basis of such information. It is therefore not open to the successful candidate to subsequently resile from the aforesaid clear admission and contend that he was unaware that an ‘incorrect’ date of birth was recorded in certain documents. Having admitted the fact that his date of birth was 01.01.1993 and place of birth was Rampur, in the application form dated 06.07.2012 which was at an undisputed point of time, the successful candidate cannot resile from the same. [Para 13.5][453-E-H; 454-A-B]

5. Birth certificate dated 21.01.2015 was issued without following the mandatory provisions of Section 13 of the 1969 Act. Also Rule 9 of the U.P. Registration of the Birth and Death Rules, 2002 and Section 13(3) of the 1969 Act, provided that any birth or death which had not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of First Class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and upon payment of the prescribed fee. Rule 9(3) of the U.P. Registration of the B C D E F G H MOHD. ABDULLAH AZAM KHAN v. NAWAB KAZIM ALI KHAN 401 Birth and Death Rules, 2002, provided that any birth or death which had not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and after payment of a late fee of Rs. 10/. Therefore, the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, had no jurisdiction to register the birth of the successful candidate after twenty five years from the date on which he was stated to be born by the issuance of the Birth Certificate on 21.01.2015 (Ex. P2 Paper No. A63/ 1) without an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as required under Section 13(3) of the 1969 Act, read with Rule 9(3) of the U.P. Registration of the Birth and Death Rules, 2002. The birth certificate (Ex. P2 Paper No. A63/ 1) issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, on 21.01.2015 was null and void. [Para 15.4][460-D-H]

6. No weight can be placed on the birth certificate dated 21.01.2015, issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, which is stated to be issued on the strength of an entry made in the birth register maintained by the hospital and is created by manipulation and interpolation in the relevant hospital records. In the absence of any explanation as to why the relevant birth list, forming the basis of the entry in the birth register, was not available to be produced before the Court, no evidentiary value can be attached to the birth register. Consequently, the birth certificate dated 21.01.2015, issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow on the strength of such documents, cannot be held to be a valid document. [Para 15.13][463-A-C]

7. It is also to be noticed that Birth Certificate showing the date of birth of the successful candidate as 01.01.1993 was still holding the field and valid and thus till the same was cancelled subsequently, the successful candidate had two Birth Certificates showing his date of birth at two different places and on two different dates, namely, one on 01.01.1993 at Rampur and another on 30.09.1990 at Lucknow which clearly indicates that only one Birth Certificate was valid and correct as far as successful candidate’s date of birth is concerned. The certificate showing the date of birth of the successful candidate as 01.01.1993 at Rampur is the correct certificate and not the one subsequently obtained in the year 2015. [Para 15.14][463-C-E] A B C D E F G H 402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 12 S.C.R.

8. Entries pertaining to the birth of the successful candidate, in the Emergency O.T.(E.O.T.) and Maternity Labour Room (M.L.R.) registers were mired with discrepancies, overwriting and factual inaccuracies. Both such registers were not authenticated by any Officer of Queen Mary’s Hospital or King George University and were not attested. By DW3’ s own admission, the only basis on which she was stating that the relevant entries in the registers were genuine was on her understanding of the working procedures of the hospital. This does not inspire much confidence as to the genuineness of the entries made in the registers, which ex facie appear to be manipulated. [Para 16.18][468-F-H]

9. An ossification test cannot be solely relied upon as conclusive proof of age and the said test is by no means an infallible or accurate test to determine the correct number of years of a person’s life. The general rule for determining the age is that it can vary plus or minus two years and that the date of birth of a person is to be determined on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by parties. The report of an ossification test can, at most, be used to corroborate other relevant evidences, oral or documentary. Even so, relying on the aforesaid case, the High Court had rightly observed that if the margin factor of (plus or minus) two years is applied to the case of the successful candidate, it could also mean that in the year 2017 the age of the successful candidate was 24 years which would indicate that he was born in the year 1993. In that background, the medical examination report of the successful candidate dated 27.01.2017 based on an ossification test conducted, wherein his age was recorded to be twenty six years at the relevant time, cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of his age and the same would not hold any water. [Paras 17.2 and 17.3][469-G-H; 470-A-D]

10.1. The appellant-successful candidate was not born on 30.09.1990 and was not twenty-five years old at the time of filing the nomination as the appellant has been unable to prove the said fact despite the voluminous oral and documentary evidence provided on record. In fact, G.I.S. Nomination Form submitted by DW-5 at an undisputed point of time and which is part of her A B C D E F G H MOHD. ABDULLAH AZAM KHAN v. NAWAB KAZIM ALI KHAN 403 Service Book which is adduced as evidence at the behest of the appellant-successful candidate goes against the case of the appellant. The G.I.S. Nomination Form is in consonance with the passports and visa issued by the concerned authorities showing the date of birth of the appellant as 01.01.1993 which have been produced by the election petitioner in support of his case. The issuance of the fresh passport during the pendency of the Election Petition showing the date of birth as 30.09.1990 is of no consequence and cannot be of any assistance to the appellant. Similarly, Class X Secondary School Examination Certificate and Class XII Secondary School Examination Certificate which indicate the date of birth of the appellant as 01.01.1993 even till date, are also in consonance with the earlier passports and visa documents produced by the respondent-election petitioner. In fact, the appellant-successful candidate had relied upon the educational certificates indicating his date of birth as 01.01.1993 and his place of birth as Rampur for the purpose of securing his earlier passports and visa. [Para 20][479-A-F]

10.2. Moreover, the stand taken by the successful candidate that all documents pertaining to the Birth Certificate dated 28.06.2012 issued by the office of Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur, were burnt due to a short circuit on 08.05.2015 would suggest that the said birth certificate, wherein the date of birth of the successful candidate was recorded as 01.01.1993 came to be destroyed and later cancelled were under suspicious circumstances. [Para 20][479-G-H]

10.3. Further, on a perusal of the E.O.T. and M.L.R. registers, it is clear that the same are mired with discrepancies, over-writing and factual inaccuracies and the same cannot be ignored. Therefore, no weight can be placed on the birth certificate dated 21.01.2015, issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, which is stated to be issued on the strength of an entry made in the birth register maintained by the hospital, which itself is not authentic in the absence of production of the birth list indicating the birth of the appellant on 30.09.1990, and is created by manipulation and interpolation in the hospital records. [Para 20][480-A-C] A B C D E F G H 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 12 S.C.R.

10.4. No weight can be placed on the result of the ossification test as other documents such as the matriculation certificate, date of birth certificate issued by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur and passports prove that the age and the date of birth recorded in such documents is contrary to the result of the ossification test. [Para 20][480-C-D]

10.5. The Aadhar card, driver’s licence and voter ID of the appellant-successful candidate, which were issued on the strength of the duplicate certificates issued by the Queen Mary’s Hospital, Lucknow, and the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, on 21.04.2015 and 21.01.2015, respectively, are not proof of the successful candidate’s date of birth as 30.09.1990. [Para 20][480-D-E] Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and Ors. A.I.R. 1965 SC 282 : [1965] 3 SCR 861; Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit A.I.R. 1988 SC 1796 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 1; Joshna Gouda vs. Brundaban Gouda (2012) 5 SCC 634 : [2012] 1 SCR 464 and Narender Singh v. Mala Ram and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 198 – distinguished.