135-NLR-NLR-V-57-S.-KUMARASAMY-Appellant-and-COMMISSIONER-FOR-REGISTRATION-OF-INDIAN-AND-PAKIST.pdf
Present :H. N. G. Fernando, J., and T. S. Fernando, J.
S. IvUMAR AS AM Y, Appellant, and COMMISSIONER FORREGISTRATION OF INDIAN AND PAKISTANIRESIDENTS, Resjiondcnt-
S. C. 122—In the Matter of an Application under the Indian andPakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, No. 3 of 1910
Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act, Ko. 3 oj 1019—Application forcitizenship thereunder—Proof of residence of children.
In an application for citizenship under the Indian and Pakistani Residents(Citizenship) Act, proof of a mother’s continuous residence in Ceylon duringo jJeriod in which children were born to her raises a very strong inference thatthe children, whilo of tender age, were cared for by their mother hi a homeprovided by their father.
jAlPPEAL from an order of the Commissioner for Registration ofIndian and Pakistani Residents.
S. P. A marasinfjliam, for the applicant-appellant.
Walter Jayawardene, for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vull.
June 13, 1956. H. N. G. Fernando, J.—
The only reason why the Deputy Commissioner has refused this appli-cation is that he was “ unable to hold ” that the applicant’s daughterAmbujan had been In Ceylon during two periods :—(1) September, 1941,to April, 1944, and (2) October, 1947, to May, 1949. It was proved thatAmbujan was born In Ceylon in 1936 and was admitted to an estateschool in April, 1944, and the first of the periods referred to was ac-cordingly one during which Ambujan was between 5 and 8 years of age.It was also proved that a second child of the marriage was bom in Ceylon
1 22 N. L. R. 3S1.
in December, 1939, and that the third child was born in Ceylon in April,1942. In regard to the two younger children the Deputy Commissionerhas apparently accepted the evidence that they remained in Ceylonfrom the time of their birth onwards ; and in regard to the motherhe was apparently satisfied that she remained continuously in Ceylonfrom 1939 onwards. This evidence raises a strong inference that theeldest child Ambujan, who was only 3 years of age in 1939, also remainedin Ceylon with her parents. The parents and the younger childrenhaving been in Ceylon during the whole of the first mentioned period,it was most unlikely that Ambujan would have been separated from herfamily before she commenced to attend school. I think therefore thatthere was no reason why the Deputy Commissioner should have rejectedthe evidence of the applicant that Ambujan did not leave Ceylon afterthe time of her birth and prior to her entry into school.
Ambujan left school in September, 1947, at the age of 11 3rears and theCheck Roll register shows that she was employed on an estate fromMaj', 1949. Here again the Deputy Commissioner was satisfied thatduring the interval the mother and the other children had continuedto be ordinarily resident in Ceylon. That being so, there was little orno reason to disbelieve the applicant’s evidence that Ambujan who wasthen quite a young girl, was also in Ceylon during that time.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that in cases wherethere is proof of a mother’s continuous residence in Ceylon during aperiod in which children were born to her, the circumstances raise a verystrong inference that the children, while of tender age, would have beencared for by their mother in a home provided by their father. Hence,when oral evidence is tendered in proof of what might be legitimatelyinferred from the circumstances, the evidence should not be rejectedmerely because an applicant is unable to adduce documentary evidencein addition.
The appeal is allowed with costs fixed at Rs. 105, and the DeputyCommissioner is directed to take the further steps necessary under theAct on the footing that a prima facie case for the registration of theapplicant and his dependants has been made out.
T. S. Fr.RVASDo, J.— I agree.
Appeal allowed.