Marimuthu v. Commissioner for Registration of Indian and
1958Present: H. N. G. Fernando, J.A. V. MARIMUTHU, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER FOR REGIS-TRATION OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI RESIDENTS, RespondentS. C. Application (Citizenship) 380/57
In the matter of an Appeal under Section 15 of the Indian and PakistaniResidents (Citizenship) Act, No. 3 of 1949Indian and Pakistani Residents (CiUsenship) Act, No. 3 of 1949—Applicant forregistration as citizen—Evidence of visits made to India—How far it negativesintention of permanent settlement in Ceylon—Effect of inheriting propertyin India.
In an application for citizenship under the Indian and Pakistani Residents(Citizenship) Act—
Held, (i) that while visits made to India for the purposes of any businessmaintained there or in connection with the management of property there mayindicate that an applicant is not permanently settled in Ceylon, visits merelyfor the purpose of occasional meetings with parents do not bear the samecomplexion, particularly in the case of an applicant who was bom in Ceylon.
(ii) that the fact that, after the date of his application for citizenship, theapplicant inherited a share of his deceased father’s property was not prejudicialto his claim for citizenship.
H. N. G. FERNANDO, J.— Marimuthu v. Commissioner for
Registration of Indian and Pakistani Residents
avPPEAL under section 15 of the Indian and Pakistani Residents(Citizenship) Act.
8. P. Amarasinghcm, with F. X. J. Basanayagam, for the Applicant-Appellant.
8. Wanasundere, Crown Counsel, for the Respondent.
Cur. adv. wit.
December 5,1958. H. N. G. Fernando, J.—
The only reasons given in the order for the finding that the applicantwas not permanently settled in Ceylon are firstly, that the applicant madefrequent visits to India, and secondly, that he had made no attempt todispose of his property in India.
The applicant has made four visits to India since 1939—in 1941 to getmarried, in 1942 to attend his mother’s funeral, in 1946 to stay for threemonths with his father “ who was anxious to see us ”, and again in 1950to see his father. The father was apparently ailing, for he died in March1951. One finds again and again that visits of this kind are used againstapplicants for citizenship. While visits made to India for the purposesof any business maintained there or in connection with the managementof property there may indicate that an applicant is not permanentlysettled in Ceylon, visits merely for the purpose of occasional meetings withparents surely do not bear the same complexion, particularly in the caseof an applicant who was bom in Ceylon.
In regard to the second matter, the property which the applicant ownsis his share of his father’s property in India. This share only accrued tohim after his father’s death and after the date of his application forCitizenship. It was quite unreasonable to expect him to have disposedof a share to which he had no right at the time of his application.
There is ample evidence in this case to show that Ceylon had becomethe applicant’s home before he made his application. The appeal isallowed with costs fixed at Rs. 105 and the Commissioner is directed totake steps on the basis that a prima facie case has been made out for theregistration of the applicant, his wife and children.
A. V. MARIMUTHU, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER FOR REGISTRATION OF INDIAN AND PA