K.C.DAS GUPTA, J,

(1) THIS is an appeal against a judgment and order of the High court of Andhra Pradesh confirming. an order of the Election tribunal, Hyderabad by which the tribunal dismissed an election petition filed by the present appellant. By that petition this appellant sought a declaration that the election of three persons, the present respondent, Seetharam Reddy, one Anandam and M. Ataur Rahman be declared void and that he, the petitioner, be declared as duly elected to the Legislative council of the Andhra Pradesh from Telangana Graduates Constituency. In this appeal we are no longer concerned with the question of validity of elections of Mr. Anandam or Mr. M. Ataur Rahman but only with that of the respondent Seetharam Reddy.

(2) THE appellant challenges the decision of the High court mainly on the ground that in reaching its conclusion on the vital question of the age of Seetharam Reddy on the date of election the High court took into consideration evidence which was not legally available for such consideration.

(3) THOUGH a large number of objections were raised in the petition to contest the validity of Seetharam Reddys election, only four of them were ultimately pressed before the Election tribunal, viz., (1) That Seetharam Reddy was disqualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative council under Art. 173 (b) of the Constitution his age being below 30 years on the relevant date; (2) That the election was vitiated by undue influence exercised on the voters by some Ministers of the State of Andhra Pradesh ; (3) That the secrecy of the ballot was not maintained, and (4) That the election was void on account of improper deletion of names of voters in the final list.

(4) ALL these objections were rejected by the Election tribunal which accordingly dismissed the petition. On appeal, the High court confirmed the findings of the Election tribunal on all these points and dismissed the appeal.

(5) FACED with the position that the correctness of these findings which are all findings of facts is not open to challenge before this court in this appeal by special leave, the appellant has raised the contention that the High courts decision on the question of age of Seetharam Reddy was vitiated by the error of law in that additional evidence was admitted and considered by the High Court without complying with the provisions of law.

(6) IT appears that a considerable amount of oral and documentary evidence was adduced before the tribunal on this question of Seetharam Reddys age. While the petitioner tried to establish that Seetharam Reddy was born. in October 1931, Seetharam Reddy tried to establish that he was born sometime in 1928. The tribunal rejected as unworthy of credit the oral testimony adduced by either side. It also rejected most of the documentary evidence, including R-5 and R-6, R-11 and R-12. R-5 is a birth register; R-6 is an entry therein, R-11 is a certificate purporting to be issued by the Head Master of the Muslim High School, Kurnool, in respect of the age of the respondent Seetharam Reddy while R-12 is an application said to have been made at the time of his admission to this school. The tribunals finding was that Seetharam Reddy did not study in the Kurnool Muslim High School. The tribunal also rejected the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner seeking to show that the respondent Seetharam Reddy was born on 10/10/1931. Ultimatel