091-NLR-NLR-V-56-M.-PALANIYANDI-Appellant-and-COMMISSIONER-FOR-REGISTRSTION-OF-INDIAN-AND-PAKI.pdf
374
Palaniyandi v. Commissioner for Registration of Indian and
Pakistan* Residents
1955
Present : Pulle J.
M. PALANIYANDI, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER FORREGISTRATION OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANI RESIDENTS,RespondentS. C. 838—In the Matter of an Appeal under section 15 of the Indianand Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act
Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, No. 3 of 1949—Citizenship byregistration—Corroborative evidence—Prima facie case—Section 14 (7) (a).
If, in an application for acquisition of citizenship by registration under theprovisions of the Indian and Pakistani (Citizenship) Act, the Commissionerinsists on having corroborative evidence of the applicant's testimony,such corroborative evidence must not be rejected arbitrarily.
PUL.LE J.—Palaniyandi v. Commissioner far Registration oj Indian
and Pakistani Residents
375
XjLpPEAL under section 15 of the Indian and Pakistani Residents(Citizenship) Act.,•. *
y. K. Choksy, Q.C., with C. Shanmuganayagam, for the appellant.
M. Tiruchelvam, Deputy Solicitor-General, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
March 14, 1955. Pullb J.—
This is an appeul taken frpm an order refusing an application by onePalaniyantli for registration as citizen under the provisions of the Indianand Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, No. 3 of 1949. The appellantadduced at first documenf^ry evidence to satisfy the requirements of theAct as to continuous residence during the period of ten years commencingon January 1, 1936, and ending on December 31, 1945, and at an inquiryheld by tho Deputy Commissioner on January 23, 1954, this was sup-plemented by oral evidenoe. for the purpose of this appeal it is necessaryto deal only with the evidence called to prove that the appellant resided inCeylon during the years 1936 to 1939. The Deputy Commissionerheld that thero was no satisfactory proof of residence during these yearsand the question I have to decide is whether within the meaning of section14 (7) (u) of the Act there was a prima facie case for allowing theapplication.
The uppellant was bom in India in the year 1924 or 1925. He came toCeylon with his mother in about 1934 and lived on Balmoral Estate,Agrapatna. There is proof that he attended the estate school fromSeptember 1935, to August 31, 1936. According to the appellunt hocontinued to live on the estate with his mother until 1939 when he loftBalmoral Estate and took employment under a Chettiar at Bogowan-talawa in April of that year. The evidence of his employment at Bogo-wantalawa is amply proved. Was he on Balmoral Estate from Sep-tember 1936 to April 1939 ? According to the appellant he took privatetuition on the estate after he left school. He called one Periannan whowas a labourer on tho same estate from 1925 to 1950 to speak to thoappellant's residence on the estate. There are, undoubtedly, minorinconsistencies between the evidence of the appellant and that ofPeriannan but tho reasons given by the Deputy Commissioner for notacting on their evidence are, in my opinion, not valid. He says,
(«) that Periannan is an uncle of the applicant ;
that ho himself is an applicant for citizenship ; and
that he stated in evidence that the applicant left the estate in 1938
or 1939.
Once it was accepted that Periannan was on the estate during the re-levant period his relationship to the appellant would only serve to makehis evidence more reliable in the sense that he should have known the
376
Shivagurunathan v. Visaladchi
■whereabouts of a nephew who was 12 years old when he left the schoolon an estate where his mother had been a labourer from 1925 to 1950.'The witness's uncertainty whether the appellant left the estate in1938 or 1939 is not a matter for surprise when he is questioned in 1954.
I am wholly unable to appreciate the reason that Periannan laid liim-self open to have his evidence rejected on the ground that he himself wasan applicant for citizenship.
It was perfectly open to the Deputy Commissioner for good reasons toTefuse to act on the uncorroborated testimony of an applicant. If heinsisted on corroboration the proper approach to the question he had todetermine was whether there was reliable circumstantial or directevidence tending to show that the, appellant was speaking the truth. Apiece of corroborative evidence is that the appellant was only 12 yearseld when he left the estate school where his mother was employed as alabourer and it is most unlikely that he was away from Ceylon between1st September, 1936, and 18th April, 1939, while his mother continuedto be a labourer.
Periannan had the means of knowledge and the grounds stated by theDeputy Commissioner for doubting his evidence appear to be arbitrary.In my opinion there was good and sufficient evidence to afford reasonablegrounds for believing that the appellant resided in Ceylon during theperiod 1936 to 1939. Learned Counsel for the appellant asks me only tofind that there was a prima facie case for allowing the application and Ifind accordingly.
The appellant is entitled to his costs which I fix at Rs. 210.
Appeal allowed.