Back
THOMAS P.A.G. v. COMMISIONER FOR REGISTRATION OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI RESIDENTS
NLR55V40
1953 Present: Nagalingam
A.C.J.
P. A. G. THOMAS, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER FOR
REGISTRATION OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI RESIDENTS,
Respondent
S. C. 56-Appeal under section 15 (1) of the Indian and Pakistani
Residents (Citizenship) Act
Indian and Pakistani Residents
(Citizenship) Act, No. 3 of 1949-Section 3- Application for registration as
citizen of Ceylon- Quantum of evidence-Costs,
In an application for registration as a citizen of Ceylon under the Indian and
Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act-
Held, (i) that the single circumstance that the applicant had made declarations
of temporary residence in " B Forms " for the purpose of remitting two sums of
money should not be permitted to have an over-riding effect over all other
considerations.
(ii) that the descendant of a person who has been registered as a citizen of
Ceylon on the ground of permanent settlement is entitled to a certificate of
registration without proof that he himself has permanently settled in Ceylon.
Costs to be taxed as in an action in Class V in the District Court.
APPEAL
under section 15 (1) of the Indian and Pakistani Residents. (Citizenship) Act,
No. 3 of 1949.
N. K. Choksy, Q .C., with E. R. S. R. Coomaraswamy, for the
appellant.
M. Tiruchelvarn, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
August 26, 1953.
NAGALINGAM A.C.J.-
" This is an appeal from an order of the Commissioner for the Registration of
Indian and Pakistani Residents refusing the application of the appellant for
registration as a citizen of Ceylon under Act No. 3 of 1949.
The Commissioner has accepted the evidence adduced by the appellant in regard to
the continuity of his residence in Ceylon within the meaning of and as required
by section 3 of the Act, but the ground on which the refusal was based by the
learned Commissioner is that he is not satisfied " that the applicant had
permanently settled in Ceylon". Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that
the decision of the learned Commissioner is erroneous not only in regard to the
question of permanent settlement but also in regard to the question of law that
arises in the case, independently of any question of permanent settlement of the
appellant.
In so far as the facts are concerned, there can be little doubt that a very
strong prima facie case has been made out by the appellant. He was born in
Ceylon he was educated in Ceylon, excepting for a period of two years in India ;
his parents are in Ceylon; he was married in Ceylon ; his wife has continued to
live in Ceylon ; his child was born in Ceylon, and the child has also continued
to live up to the date of application in Ceylon; furthermore, he has been
employed continuously in Ceylon ever since he became employable. He has no
interest in India in the sense of being possessed of any property there, and it
is equally true to say that he has no interest in Ceylon in the same sense. So
far as acquisition of any property in Ceylon is concerned, he has referred to
the fact that he is a young man twenty-six years of age and has not reached that
stage in life when as a result of his own exertions-he could be expected to have
accumulated sufficient wealth to make investments of any kind. What is yet a
still stronger factor is that his father has been granted a certificate of
registration and so has one of his brothers, while the application of another
brother is yet pending.
As against all these facts and circumstances, what has been regarded as
sufficient to turn the balance against the appellant has been the statement by
the appellant that he is a temporary resident in two application forms, referred
to as " B Forms " for the purpose of remitting two sums of money, of Rs. 60 and
Rs. 25 in February and December of the year 1949. He has made no other
remittances even subsequently. The appellant when called for an explanation in
r
