(14) Learned Counsel for the appellants / plaintiffs have submitted that if Munshi Yadav was aged about 26 years in 1975, then in 1970 (the year of his adoption), his age was about 21 years and therefore, he was not eligible for valid adoption as per the condition laid down in Sec. 10 (iv) of the Act. The learned lower court has failed to appreciate this fact and has wrongly dismissed the suit. However, it is well settled that voter list is not an authentic proof of the age of a person. Therefore, relying upon the voter list to show that Munshi Yadav was more than 21 years of age in the year 1970 will be not only erroneous, but also against the settled principle of law. In Gayatri Devi-Vs-State of Jharkhand & others 2016(3) JLJR 622 , the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court has held that a voter list is not a document in proof of date of birth. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Akbar Sheikh vs State of W.B. (2009) 7 SCC 415 , has also held that voter list is not decisive in determining the age of a person. Therefore, on the basis of the entries made in a voter list, it cannot be held that Munshi Yadav was a major in the year 1970 and therefore, not eligible for being taken into adoption. The documents and other materials on which such entries are made are not available to the court and therefore, it is not safe to rely upon those entries made in the voter list. Such lists and entries also become doubtful when the person whose name appears in it himself contest their genuineness. Both Gono Mahto and Kusia Mahatwain (the adoptive parents) and Dhananjay Mahato (natural father) have admitted in their written statement dated 16/01/1984 that Munshi Yadav was validly adopted on 10/02/1970 and on that day he was only 10 years old. The plaintiffs/appellants have not adduced any legal and reliable evidence to rebut this fact.”
