ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. 1. Under challenge is the impugned judgment dated 17-11-2016 passed by Senior Civil Judge Behrod, District Alwar allowing the election petition No. 1/2015 filed by the election petitioner (hereinafter 'the EP') against the returned candidate (hereinafter 'the RC') setting aside her election as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhagwadi Khurd, Tehsil Behrod, District Alwar and declaring the EP Archana Devi elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in issue. 2. Election to the post of Sarpanch of village Bhagwadi Khurd, Tehsil Behrod, District was held on 1-2-2015 in which three candidates contested. The EP and another lost, while the RC won. The EP challenged the RC's election on the ground that she was statutorily ineligible to contest as she had given birth to three children Sudha @ Monika, Pappu @ Saurabh and Pappu @ Ashish @ Sushant all after 27-11-1995, the cut off date under Section 19(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1994'). That disqualified her to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch. Yet she contested and won but could be allowed to continue. It was alleged that the RC even while admitting to be mother of three children had wrongly claimed that two of her children Saurabh and Ashish had been born twins on 18-3-2003, and hence she was eligible to contest the election in issue. It was prayed that RC's election on this score be set aside and for reason of having secured the next higher number of votes at the election, the EP be declared to have been elected as Sarpanch. 3. On notice on the election petition, the RC filed a reply of denial. Her case was that her children Ashish and Saurabh were born as twins on 18-3-2003 and in terms of the Explanation I to Section 19(1) of the Act of 1994 she was thus not ineligible for the reason that the twins had to be reckoned as single delivery. 4. Her case was that her children Ashish and Saurabh were born as twins on 18-3-2003 and in terms of the Explanation I to Section 19(1) of the Act of 1994 she was thus not ineligible for the reason that the twins had to be reckoned as single delivery. 4. Based on the pleadings of the contesting parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- ^^1- vk;k jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19¼,y½ ds izHkkoh gksus dh frfFk 27-11-1995 ds ckn v;kph la[;k&1 ds nks ls vf/kd larku gksus ds dkj.k og ljiap in dk pquko yM+us ;ksX; ugha Fkk ,oa blh vk/kkj ij ;kph] v;kph ds ljiap in ij fuokZpu dks fujLr djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ ----------- ;kph 2- vk;k fjVfuax vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 1-2-2015 dks xkze iapk;r HkxokM+h [kqnZ ds ljiap in ij v;kph ds pquko dks ;kph ;kfpdk dh en la[;k 14 o 15 esa of.kZr vk/kkjksa ij 'kwU; ?kksf"kr djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ --------------- ;kph 3- vk;k ;kph ljiap in gsrq Mkys x, erksa dh iqu% x.kuk djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ -------- ;kph 4- vuqrks"k\^^ 5. The EP examined herself as AW-1 and one Sant Lal Aw-2 and exhibited 17 documents. The RC examine herself as NAW-1, Mishri Devi, NAW-2 and Dharampal NAW-3 and 9 documents were exhibited. 6. On consideration of issue No. 1, the trial court from the evidence on record including that of the RC herself and her witnesses found that the RC had not been able establish that Saurabh and Ashish were twins born on 18-3-2003. For this the trial court relied upon the Registration (Exhibit-8) wherefrom it was established that her second child was born on 3-9-2001 and vaccinated for BCG on 6-10-2001. Similarly the Registration Certificate (Exhibiti-7) showed that a third child was born to RC on 28-5-2003 and vaccinated for BCG on 19-9-2003. The Trial court also took into consideration that on complaint made against the RC having contested the election despite her ineligibility of having borne three children subsequent to 27-11-1995, the Sub Divisional Officer Behrod in an enquiry report (Ex. 6) conveyed to the Divisional Commissioner that the RC had indeed given birth to three children on different dates after the cut of date. Also on record was a ration card (Ex. 6) conveyed to the Divisional Commissioner that the RC had indeed given birth to three children on different dates after the cut of date. Also on record was a ration card (Ex. 12) relating to the RC's family where Saurabh was shown 3 months old, but it had no mention of Ashish, who if born to her as Saurabh's twin as claimed by the RC, would have been recorded in the ration card. Further, the trial court noted the fact that the RC's husband filed his nomination form (Ex. 11) on 11-1-2010 for election as member of Panchayat Samiti, wherein he had mentioned his children Seema (12 years) and Saurabh (10 years), but he did not record that Ashish, the third child was Saurabh's twin. 7. The trial court further found that as per RC's document Ex. D-4 Ashish purportedly born on 18-3-2003 was shown to be a student of class V, in Yaduvanshi Shiksha Niketan school, and Saurbh born on 18-3-2003, oddly a student of class VII in the same school, particularly as the RC stated in her cross examination in court that none of the two had ever failed a class. The trial court also found the record of Yaduvanshi Shiksha Niketan school incapable of any credibility as the SR scholar register (Ex. D-4) number of the RC's older child Saurabh was shown at Sr. No. 4338 subsequent to the younger child Ashish at Sr. No. 4201. The school register of the school was quite mixed up and younger children were shown earlier admitted to the school, while the older were subsequently admitted. For this reason the purported recorded date of birth of Saurabh and Ashish in the school did not lend much satisfaction as to its probative worth to the trial court, particularly in view of the other overwhelming evidence on record probabilising that Saurabh and Ashish were not twins. Consequently, the trial court concluded that from the oral and documentary evidence produced by the RC in defence was not believable and the EP has proved from her evidence on the standard of preponderance of probability that the RC after having borne a girl child Sudha @ Monika on 9-10-1999 had given birth to Saurabh as the second on 3-9-2001 and to Ashish as the third child on 28-5-2003. 8. 8. Albeit issue No. 2 & 3 were decided against the EP, in view of issue No. 1 being decided against the RC, her election was set aside. Then holding that the EP was the second highest votes getter, at the election of the Sarpanch, the trial court proceeded to declare her as elected to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhagwadi Khurd, Tehsil Behrod, District Alwar. 9. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma Senior Advocate appearing with Mrs. Naina Saraf for the RC submitted that the trial court erred in overlooking the documentary evidence submitted by the RC, particularly the birth certificates Ex. D-1, Ex. D-2 and Ex. D-3 of the RC's children wherefrom Saurabh and Ashish were twins born on 18-3-2003. He further submitted that the trial court took a lopsidedly beneficial hence perverse view of the EP's evidence and drew impermissible inferences to negate her case of Saurabh and Ashish borne as twins on 18-3-2003. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma submitted that not much credence could be laid on the Yogya Dampati Register or the Birth Registration list and vaccination record, albeit public documents as they were unilaterally prepared. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma finally submitted that in any event as admittedly more than two candidates had contested the election on the post of Sarpanch, the setting aside of RC's election could not have entailed the EP being declared elected on the ground of being the second highest votes getter at the election in issue. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vishwanatna Reddy v. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda [ AIR 1969 SC 604 ] wherein it has been held that where there are more than two candidates in the field for one elected office, the candidate securing the next highest number of votes cannot be declared to be elected. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Ummed Kanwar v. Prabhu Singh, SBCWP No. 5201/2012 decided on 10-5-2012. 10. Mr. R.P. Singh Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Brijesh Yadav on behalf of the EP has supported the impugned judgment. It was submitted that the findings of the trial court on issue No. 1 pertaining to Saurabh and Ashish not being born as twins on 18-3-2003 as claimed by the RC but aside of Sudha @ Monika born on 9-10-1999 (Ex. 3), Saurabh having been born on 3-9-2001 (Ex. It was submitted that the findings of the trial court on issue No. 1 pertaining to Saurabh and Ashish not being born as twins on 18-3-2003 as claimed by the RC but aside of Sudha @ Monika born on 9-10-1999 (Ex. 3), Saurabh having been born on 3-9-2001 (Ex. 8) and Ashish on 28-5-2003 is based on appreciation of all evidences of the RC and the EP on record and cannot be interfered with in this court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that even otherwise the trial court's finding on issue No. 1 is the only one which could have been arrived at even on the RC's own evidence such as while Saurabh and Ashish purported twins, who never failed a class were yet in class VII and V at Yaduvanshi Shikha Niketan school in the same academic year. That fact by itself was adequate for probabilsing that they were not twins as claimed by the RC. Further in the RC's family ration card (Ex. 12) only Saurabh's name was included, not of Ashish, for if it they were twins as claimed by the RC Ashish's name with Saurabh would have been included in the ration card. Mr. R.P. Singh further submitted that in the election to the post of member of Panchayat Samiti contested by RC's husband in 2010, he had not disclosed that Ashish was Saurabh's twin. In fact Ashish's birth was suppressed by the RC's husband to circumvent his own statutory ineligibility. Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that if Ashish had indeed been Saurabh's twin there was no difficulty in disclosing his name by the RC's husband in his nomination form of the said election. 11. Heard counsel for the RC, as also the EP, and perused the impugned judgment passed by the trial court. 12. The trial court has not committed any illegality in arriving at its finding on issue No. 1 in the context of overarching circumstances and evidences based inter alia RC's own and on public records before it. It has for good reasons not lent credence to the birth certificates submitted by the RC which were obtained on 2-1-2015 just prior to the election in issue. It has for good reasons not lent credence to the birth certificates submitted by the RC which were obtained on 2-1-2015 just prior to the election in issue. Further the trial court considered the fact that her son Ashish, Saurabh's purported twin was a student of class V in the same school and in the same year when her other son Saurabh was a student of class VII, even while she admitted that neither of them ever failed a class and nor was it stated even as a fig leaf of defence that despite being allegedly of the same age the two started school one after the other in different years for a plausible credible cause. Therefore the claim of the RC that her two sons Saurabh and Ashish were twins was not credible. This discrepancy and the resultant factual inference of Saurabh and Ashish not being twins was also fortified by the RC's family ration card (Ex. 12) wherein Saurabh was shown to be three months old, but the name of Ashish was not recorded. Further contemporaneously prepared Birth Registration List (Ex. 3), Pregnant Women List (Ex. 5), Delivery Service description (Ex. 7), Birth Registration list (Ex. 8), vaccination detail (Ex. 9) and Pregnant Women List (Ex. 10), RC's ration card (Ex. 12) public documents on record of the trial court established that Sudha @ Monika was born to RC on 9-10-1999, whereafter the RC gave birth to Saurabh on 3-9-2001 and Ashish on 28-5-2003. 13. The Evidence Act, 1872 states a fact to be "proved" when, after considering the overall evidence before it, the court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists". The Apex court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi [ (1991)2 SCC 716 ] has held in the aforesaid context that standard of proof in case other than criminal is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, but based on preponderance of probability and where a reasonable and plausible factual inference can be drawn from the factual and circumstantial evidence on record in favour of the plaintiff, his petition is to be allowed. In Toral Mahto v. Chandeshwar Mahto [AIR 1972 Patna 13] the Division Bench held that public documents, in this case the RC's ration-card (Ex. 12), can be admitted and relied in evidence without calling as a witness the officer who prepared it. This court in the case of Smt. Ummed Kanwar v. Prabhu Singh [ 2012(4) WLC 14 ] has held that standard of proof required in an election petition founded on ineligibility of RC is not "beyond reasonable doubt" but only "preponderance of probability". 14. I am of the considered view that on the evidence on record the trial court has not committed any perversity in holding that having born three children after 27-11-1995, the cut off date under Section 19(1) of the Act 1995 i.e. Sudha @ Monika on 9-10-1999, Saurabh on 3-9-2001 and Ashish on 28-5-2003, the RC was not eligible to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch and yet so having done and won, it was liable to be set aside. 15. However, the trial court has committed an illegality in declaring the EP to be elected to the post of Sarpanch on the ground of her securing the second highest votes at the election in issue, despite more than two candidates admittedly having contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of village Bhagwadi Khurd, Tehsil Behrod District Alwar. Such conclusion of the trial court is contrary to binding judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vishwanatna Reddy v. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda (supra) as also the judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Ummed Kanwar v. Prabhu Singh (supra). 16. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 17-11-2016 is partially upheld to the extent it set aside the election of the RC to the post of Sarpanch on the ground of her being ineligible under Section 19(1) of the Act of 1994 to contest it for reason of giving birth to three children all after 27-11-1995 i.e. Sudha @ Monika on 9-10-1999, Saurabh on 3-9-2001 and Ashish on 28-5-2003. However, the impugned judgment is set aside to the extent it declares the EP as elected to the post of Sarpanch of village Bhagwadi Khurd Tehsil Behror on the ground of her securing second highest votes at the election, overlooking the fact that there were three candidates at the election for the post of Sarpanch in issue. 17. Consequences to follow. 18. 17. Consequences to follow. 18. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.