059-NLR-NLR-V-58-A.-ADDAICKALAM-Appellant-and-COMMISSIONER-FOR-REGISTRATION-OF-INDIAN-AND-PAKIS.pdf
1956 Present: H. N. G. Fernando, J., and T. S. Fernando, J.
A. ADDAICICADAM, Appellant, a-ml COMMISSIONER FOR REGIS-TRATION OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI RESIDENTS,
Respondent
Citizenship Case Xo. 13S of 1056—Aft plication 116532
lx tub Matter, of ax Appeal under Section 15 of tjie Indianand Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act; No. 3 of 1919
Indian and Pakistani Residents [Citizen.'■■/tip) Act, .Vo. -> of 1UJ9—Application forcitizenship—Evidence of residence of children.
There is no nv.rra.nt to take judicial notice that, among Indian estate labourers,children nro taken to India by grand-parents or relatives and kept in India forJong periods.
A.
■XjLPPEAI, under Section 15 of the Indian and Pakistani Residents(Citizenship) Act.
,9. P. Amentsingham, for the applicant-appellant-.
J.JV. Subasinghe, Crown Counsel, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 19, 1955. H. N. G. Fernando, J.—
This application for registration was refused by the Deputy Commis-sioner on the ground that- the applicant failed to prove the residence inCeylon of four of his children during certain periods as follows :—
Antony (born June 1936) from 1.1.1939 to S.2.194S.
Thavasagayam (born December I92S) from 1.1.1939 to 13.3.1910.
Mickcl (born February 1941) from 3.2.1942 to 4.S. I94S.
Mariamma (born February 1044) from 12.2.1945 to -1.5.1951.
It was proved that these four children, as well as four younger childrenof thoapplicant weroall born on an Estate in Ceylon in which the applicantwas registered as a worker, and the Deputy Commissioner was satisfiedthat the applicant and his wife were “ uninterruptedly ’’resident in Ceylonfrom January 1030 until the date of t-ho application. In tlio case of thosecond and third children, tlio Investigating Officer’s notes that they hadbeen admitted to tho estate school in March 1946, and August 194Srespectively, were accepted as evidence of tlicir resideneo thereafter.In tho caso of the eldest child, however, t-ho Investigating Officer hadnot traced any entry in tho school register, and the only documentaryevidence was that of the Check Roll which showed that the cliild had beenemployed on the estate from February I94S ; there was however the oralcvidenco of tho applicant that this child had continuously resided withhis parents in Ceylon prior to I94S. There was similarly oral evidence
-of the applicant that the other children, had. also been resident in Ceylon•during the specified periods. As I havo pointed out in Kumarasamyv. The Commissioner for Registration of Indian and JPakislani Residents,1tho fact that both parents resided in Ceylon all the time,and that other children -were also born in Ceylon strongly supportedthe applicant’s evidence. But according to tho Deputy Commissioner,“it is often found, among Indian Instate labourers, children are takento India by grand-paronts or relatives and kept in India for long periods.”There was no evidence whatever to establish this alleged custom orpractice, nor is there any warrant in the Evidence Ordinance for theDeputy Commissioner to take judicial notice of such a matter. To holdthat such a practico was followed in the present case is almost absurd,becauso it is a proved fact that tho second ancl third children at anyrate were admitted to school in Ceylon at tho ages of eight and sevenrespectively ; it is quite unreasonable to suppose t-liat they would havebcen removed from the custody of their mother during infancy and thenbrought back to Ceylon when they no longer needed a mother’s care andattention. .
Tho appeal is allowed with costs fixed at Rs. 103. The Commissionerwill take tho necessary steps on tho footing that a pvima facie case hasbeen made out for the registration of the applicant and of his wife andchildren.
T. S. Ferxaxdo, J.—I agree.
Appcal allowed..