The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person found to be a citizen of India cannot be treated as a foreigner until the Central Government records a decision to that effect under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, and the Civil Court is barred from making such a decision.

DESHPANDE, J. :- The plaintiff, appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal, instituted a suit in the City Civil Court, at Bombay for - (a) declaration that the plaintiff was a citizen of India; and (b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, i. e. the State of Maharashtra, from deporting him as a foreigner under the provisions of the Foreigners Act. The suit was instituted on 23rd January 1963. It was pleaded that he was born in Afghanistan, but has made India his domicile since his arrival in Bombay in the year 1941. He never left India since then. However, on the pressure of the police officers, he was constrained to register himself as a foreigner on 12th July 1956, and also to receive Afgan passport thereafter through Afghanistan Consulate to enable him to continue his stay in India. After the expiry of the passport period on 11-4-1961, the Afghanistan Consulate declined to renew his passport. Defendants, police officers, on the other hand, threatened to serve "leave India" notice if passport was not renewed within two months from their notice dated 11-12-1961. Finally such notice was served on 18-7-1962. The plaintiff instituted this suit after serving notice on the defendant under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 2nd October 1962.

2. The State of Maharashtra denied that the plaintiff was a citizen of India and that he was entitled to the reliefs prayed. The jurisdiction of the Court to entertain or try the suit was also questioned in view of the provisions of the Citizenship Act of 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

3. On evidence, the trial Judge held that the plaintiff was a citizen of India at the commencement of the Constitution. The suit filed after six years from the date of registration as foreigner was however, found to have been barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act of 1908, and consequently has been dismissed. While so holding, the trial Judge followed a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 3rd October 1962 in First Appeal No. 295 of 1960 delivered by Patel J. His First Appeal was dismissed by a Single Judge of this Court on 25th March 1970 holding that even if the suit was held to be within time, the plaintiff would not succeed in getting the reliefs, in view of the plaintiff being alleged to be a foreigner and the Trial of such an issue being barred by Section 9 (2) and Rule 30 of the Citizenship Act. Correctness of this judgment is challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal by the plaintiff.

4. We are afraid, the dismissal of the appeal and the suit by the Single Judge does not appear to have been warranted. The trial Judge has found that the plaintiff had proved his being a citizen of India on 26th January 1950. This finding does not appear to have been challenged in appeal and he has not considered it fit to reverse the same. Even before us. Mr. Pratap, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, had very little to say while challenging this finding of fact. It was not disputed that the plaintiff came to India in the year 1941, while he was still a boy of 14 years, he having been born in Afghanistan in the year 1926. He appears to have become major in the year 1944 and has not left India at any time during the period from 1941 till the institution of the suit on 23rd January 1962. He declined to accompany his uncle, who left India in the year 1946. He has been married in India and has been doing business in India. He is registered as a voter and has exercised franchise. These undisputed tell-tale facts are by themselves sufficient to hold that the plaintiff has adopted India as a domicile of his choice notwithstanding he having been born in Afghanistan in the year 1926.

5. A person found to be a citizen at the commencement of the Constitution possesses certain fundamental rights including freedom of movement and protection against unwarranted interference therewith. It is difficult to resist his claim for protection against unlawful int