- (1.) This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 20-3- 2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge Rajgarh, District Alwar (Election Tribunal), whereunder the election petition filed by the respondent-election petitioner (hereinafter the EP') challenging the election of the petitioner-returned candidate (hereinafter 'the RC') was allowed. The election of the RC as Sarpanch of village Panchayat Bhuda, Tehsil/ Panchayat Samiti Raini, District Alwar was set aside. Election of the RC to the post of Sarpanch of village Panchayat Bhuda, Tehsil/ Panchayat Samiti Raini, District Alwar was called in question under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1994') read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1994') by the EP inter alia alleging that the RC was not eligible to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch in terms of Section 19(l) of the Act of 1994, as he had sired more than two children i.e. Manisha Meena born on 5-4-2001, Sunil Kumar Meena born on 15-4-2003 and Gilluram Meena born on 6-6-2004. It was submitted that the RC disclosed only two children in the nomination form filed to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch of village Raini i.e. Sunil born on 15-4-2003 and Natwar born on 6-6-2004. Manisha the RC's daughter was falsely shown to have been adopted by the RC's younger brother one Shiv Charan through a registered adoption deed dated 20-11-2014. Irrelevant as the giving away in adoption was, it was all the more odd as the RC's brother Shiv Charan already had two sons and three daughters. Besides, Manisha's adoption deed 20-11-2014 was hit by Section 11(ii) of the Hindu Adoption and maintenance of Children Act, 1956 which provides for a minimum age difference of 21 years between the adopter and adopted, as Shiv Charan was 30 years old and Manisha 13 years old at the time of the sham adoption. It was also alleged that the RC lacked the minimum requisite educational qualification of class VIII pass from a recognised government school to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch. On notice on the election petition, the RC filed reply of denial stating that Manisha was not his daughter and she was a daughter of his younger brother Shiv Charan. He submitted that he had sired only two sons i.e. Sunil born on 15-4-2003 and Natwar born on 6- 6-2004, whose names were reflected in the nomination form. The RC claimed all eligibility including educational qualification to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch under the Act of 1994. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed following issues:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... In support of his case the EP examined himself and exhibited 15 documents. While the RC examined himself and exhibited FIR lodged against the EP as Ex.A-1. Other documents could not be exhibited due to objection by the EP. Issue No.1 regarding non impleadment of the Returning Officer was already decided in favour of the EP vide orders dated 31-8-2015 and 29-9-2015 holding that the Returning Officer was not a necessary party. Issue No.5 regarding the RC having sired more than two children after the cut off dated 27-11-1995 rendering him ineligible under Section 19(l) of the Act of 1994, was decided against the RC. It was held that even on the adoption deed which admitted that Manisha was the natural daughter of the RC and born on 5-4- 2001. As he rendered him ineligible in view of the RC's own case that he had two sons both born after 27-11-1995. On issue No.4 Manisha was found to be the RC's natural daughter as per the adoption deed dated 20-11-2014. Issue No.3 was accordingly decided holding Manisha to be the RC's daughter at least for the purpose of election petition. Issue No.2 was found redundant to the question of the RC's eligibility to contest election for the post of Sarpanch in view of the finding on issue No.5. Issue No.6 regarding educational ineligibility of the EP for the post of Sarpanch, was decided against the RC as he failed to discharge the burden on that count--as the burden lay on him for the reason that the said issue had been framed on his assertion in the reply to the election petition. That determination was however of no consequence to the outcome of the election petition as the election petitioner had not sought, that he has been declared elected as Sarpanch following the setting aside of the RC's election. The election petition was allowed resultant to findings on issues No.3,4 and 5 and election of the RC to the post of Sarpanch of village Bhuda, Tehsil/ Panchayat Samiti Raini, District Alwar was declared null and void. Consequent directions in the context of the case, inevitably a fresh election to the post of Sarpanch of village Bhuda, Tehsil/ Panchayat Samiti Raini, District Alwar was issued. Hence this petition. , Counsel for the RC has mechanically submitted that the Tribunal committed a gross error and perversity in setting aside the election of the RC and therefore the impugned judgment be set aside. Counsel for EP supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the case against the RC is a shut and closed case on his baseless defence of Section 19(l) of the Act of 1994 not rendering those with more than two children born subsequent to 27-11-1995 ineligible only for reason of giving away the third child in this cae Manisha admittedly born on 5-4-2001 in adoption in this case to the RC's brother Shiv Charan. It was submitted from the RC's own admission Manisha was born to him on 5-4-2001 even while he had bearing sons. This was also established from the adoption deed recording Manisha as the RC's natural daughter. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in the case of Bharatraj @ Bharatram Vs. Additional Civil Judge (SD) Baran [AIR 2013 Rajasthan 7] wherein the it was held that merely giving away the third child born after 27-11-1995 in adoption, would not circumvent the statutory disqualification under Section 19(l) of the Act of 1994. Heard learned counsel for the RC and EP. Perused the impugned judgment dated 20-3-2017. From the evidence on record it is an admitted fact that Manisha the third child of the RC was born on 5-4-2001 i.e. after the cut off date of 27-11-1995. Giving away of Manisha under the adoption deed dated 20-11-2014 to the RC's brother Shiv Charan for whatever its worth in law could not circumvent the RC's disqualification under Section 19(l) of the Act of 1994. This view of law is no more res integra. The judgment of this court in the case of Bharatraj @ Bharatram Vs. Addl. Civil Judge Baran (supra) has already held so. Resultantly the petition is without force. Dismissed. All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed. ;