CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) ON the last date of hearing when this matter was heard, I recorded the following in the order sheet. " The learned Counsel wants to press his arguments founded on the deposition before the trial Court, despite this Court repeatedly telling him that this Court is not another Court of appeal, but only a Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. If he wants to rely upon the oral evidence, he must make copies of the depositions on which he relics available to the Court. Four weeks for doing needful. "thereafter the learned Counsel has filed the photostat copies of the certified copy of the depositions recorded by the Civil Judge in the election petition - Miscellaneous Case No. 47 of 1987 in which election of rcspondcnt-1 - Mahadevi to the zilla Parishad was challenged inter alia on the ground that she had not completed the age of 21 years when she filed her nomination. The learned Civil Judge framed the following issues on the pleadings in the election petition. "1. Whether the petitioner is estopped by her conduct from challenging the date of birth of Respondent-1 as contended by respondent No. 1? ( 2 ) WHETHER respondent No. 1 was not qualified to be a candidate for election in question as averred? ( 3 ) IF so, whether the declaration of the result of the election of Mahagaon constituency can be set aside? ( 4 ) WHETHER the petitioner can be declaredas elected? ( 5 ) TO what relief the parties are entitled?" On issue Nos. 2 and 3 which were the vital issues, he found in favour of the petitioner and set aside the election of the first respondent. Aggrieved by that Judgment, petitioner preferred the appeal to the learned District Judge, Gulbarga. ( 5 ) TO what relief the parties are entitled?" On issue Nos. 2 and 3 which were the vital issues, he found in favour of the petitioner and set aside the election of the first respondent. Aggrieved by that Judgment, petitioner preferred the appeal to the learned District Judge, Gulbarga. The Additional District Judge, Gulbarga in miscellaneous Appeal No. 23 of 88 which was taken up along with Appeal No. 26 of 88 filed by the petitioner in the election petition because she had failed to get a declaration that she was to be declared as duly elected in place of the first respondent, after hearing the counsel for parties and reassessing the evidence on record, the learned Additional District Judge, Gulbarga has come to the conclusion that the evidence of Shanthabai, mother of the first respondent should be accepted as she had no reason to give any false evidence particularly when it was supported by the record produced by the hospital where the first respondent is said to have been born i. e. , gulbarga Government General Hospital. He disagreed with the view taken by the learned Civil judge because he had given undue importance to certain questions put by the Court and answered by R. W. 3. R. W. 3 had stated that case-sheets and the birth registers would be destroyed after 10 years. The learned District judge has taken the view, that witness was not competent to speak to those facts as he was merely summoned to produce the register which was in his custody and not being the person who was an employee of the hospital at the relevant time he could not speak to the practice and procedure. In regard to the entry on which the first respondent relied upon, the Court ought not to have disbelieved the entries in the register which formed part of public records. If they were destroyed as stated by R. W. 3 then he could not have produced the register in Court. It was that fact and reasoning which pursuadecl the District Judge to find fault with the learned Civil Judge and come to a different conclusion. Such reasoning cannot be considered to be perverse. If they were destroyed as stated by R. W. 3 then he could not have produced the register in Court. It was that fact and reasoning which pursuadecl the District Judge to find fault with the learned Civil Judge and come to a different conclusion. Such reasoning cannot be considered to be perverse. It was however contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this Court that school register showed a particular age which conclusively established, on the date of the nomination was filed, respondent was less than 25 years old and therefore not qualified to contest the Zilla Parishad election. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi v Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1796 . That also was a case arising under the Representation of the People Act concerning election and the age of one of the contesting candidates was in dispute. In that behalf, the supreme Court observed as follows:-" (D) Representation of the People Act, (43 of 1951) Sections 36,80 - Nomination paper - completed 25 years of age - election petition - documents showing date of birth - proof - material on which date of birth was recorded not however adduced - documents did not have probative value as proof of age of candidate. S. B. Elec. petition No. 8 of 1985, DD: 18-2-1987 (Raj.) Reversed. (Evidence Act, 1872, Section 35), (Constitution of India, Art. 173) (age - proof- probative value of documentary evidence) (date of birth - proof - evidentiary value in proving age ). To render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions must be satisfied, firstly, entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record, secondly, it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and thirdly, it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding to the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of (he person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded. "the above observations, instead of assisting the petitioner actually assist the case of the respondent. The appellate Court has accepted the record produced by the hospital as document evidencing the birth of respondent, the third female child of mother Shanthabai, as against the school certificate produced by the petitioner. In other words, the Court had an option to choose one or the other of the documents along with other evidence on record to arrive at the age to determine the qualification. If the appellate court has taken the cumulative effect of the oral evidence of the mother, the incompetence of r. W. 3 to speak to the contents of the register which he produced and his oral evidence that documents were destroyed after 10 years as irrelevant, this Court cannot say that there has been perverse reasoning resorted to by the appellate Court. If between two admissible documents, the appellate Court prefers the one which is supported by the evidence of the mother regarding the birth of her child and the inconsistency in the register regarding the name of the father by the explanation of the witness that her husband is known by both the names Siddramappa and Siddappa then the school certificate looses its importance and probative value, as observed by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision. Therefore, this Court cannot find fault with the learned District Judge who heard the appeal and came to a different conclusion than the trial court which tried the election petition. In any event as earlier noticed by me, unless there is patent error apparent on the face of the record or total want of jurisdiction or perversity in the reasoning which has resulted in injustice, this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution will not act as a Court of further appeal, reassess the evidence and come to a different conclusion one way or the other having regard to its limitation which it has imposed on itself. This petition deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .