B. R. ARORA, J. - (1.) HEAD learned counsel for the parlies. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned lower appellate Court failed to take into account the fact that the execution of the agreement for the sale of the property by the present appellant has no effect in the eye of law as at the time of execution, he was minor aged about 14 or 15 years and was a school student and the agreement executed by the minor is void-ab-initio and is unenforceable in the eye of law. To support and prove the age of the appellant that he was minor at the relevant time, he produced a school certificate. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the approach of the learned lower Court that the document should have been proved by calling the HEADmaster or other concerning persons of the school and as this was not done the age mentioned in the school certificate cannot be accepted to be true, was not correct. The school certificate is a public document and need no proof to prove its contents.
(2.) I have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. To render a document admissible in evidence, three conditions are required to be salisficd;firstly, that the entry must be in public and other official book or record, secondly, it must be an entry stating the fact in issue and, thirdly, it must be made by a public servant in the discharge of official duties or any other person in performance of the duty specially enjoined by law. An entry relating to the date of birth in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, but the entry regarding the age of a person in the school register is not of much value to prove the age of a person in the absence of the material, on the basis of which it was recorded. In the present case the appellant has not produced any evidence in support of his case as to how the entry in the school register was made. The person who got the appellant admitted in the school has not been produced to show that on what basis the age of the appellant in the school register was recorded. Neither the father nor any other person has been produced to show the correct age of the boy and, therefore, if from the surrounding circumstances the Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant, on the relevant date, was more than twenty one years of age then it cannot be said that the findings arrived at by the learned lower Court are, in any way, perverse or erroneous. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in : Biradmal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit (1), wherein it has been observed as under :- "however, neither the candidates themselves nor their parents or any person conversant with their date of birth were examined. In the absence of material on the basis of which the date of birth was recorded in School Register etc. , held that the same did not have much evidentiary value to prove the age of the candidates. The rejection of nomination papers was thus proper. " In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellant does not involve any substantial question of law and as such the same in hereby dismissed. .;