1967 (4) TMI 209 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiff is a citizen of India.
2. Whether the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.
3. Whether a valid notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., was served on the defendants.
4. Was the plaintiff entitled to the relief claimed?

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the plaintiff is a citizen of India:
The trial Court held that the plaintiff, at the time of applying for his visa, made a definite statement before the Government of India that he was a citizen of Pakistan and wanted to enter India to meet his relatives. The possession of a Pakistani passport was deemed conclusive proof of the possessor being a citizen of Pakistan. Therefore, the plaintiff had not proven that he was a citizen of India. The Central Government, during the pendency of the appeal, decided that the appellant had acquired the citizenship of Pakistan, as he had left India for Pakistan with an intention to settle there permanently, stayed there for five years, and returned to India with a Pakistani passport.

2. Whether the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit:
The trial Court and the Civil Judge on appeal held that Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in cases where the acquisition of citizenship of another country was in question. The proper course would have been to refer the question to the Central Government and stay further hearing till the decision was received. However, the High Court found this view erroneous, stating that the Civil Court's jurisdiction to try the suit itself was not barred; only the power to decide the question of foreign citizenship acquisition was barred. The proper course was to refer the question to the Central Government and then decide the suit in accordance with that decision.

3. Whether a valid notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., was served on the defendants:
This issue was not explicitly discussed in detail in the judgment, as the primary focus was on the citizenship status of the plaintiff and the jurisdictional question.

4. Was the plaintiff entitled to the relief claimed:
The High Court noted that the Central Government's decision that the appellant had voluntarily acquired Pakistani citizenship was based on the appellant's own admission in his affidavit that he obtained a Pakistani passport to visit his ailing father. The Court held that the appellant's act of obtaining the passport was voluntary and not due to fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, or any other similar reason. Therefore, even if the appellant had been given a personal hearing, the conclusion that he had acquired Pakistani citizenship would have been the same. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief claimed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff's suit for an injunction to restrain the governments from deporting him was denied. The Court directed that the parties bear their own costs throughout.