MASHKURUL HASAN Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for an injunction against the Union of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh to restrain the defendants from deporting the plaintiff-appellant to Pakistan. The suit was filed on 20th of April 1956, on the ground that the plaintiff and his parents having been born in India and having an Indian domicile, the plaintiff was a citizen of India. The plaintiff, in an extremely brief plaint, devoid of necessary particulars, staled that he had gone to Pakistan in 1948 "on a temporary visit in connection with his business activities." No details were given as to the particular nature of his business activities and the circumstances under which the plaintiff had to go to Pakistan due to the needs of his business. The plaintiff then stated that travel restrictions were suddenly imposed so that it became impossible for the plaintiff to return to India.

(2.) THE learned Munsif, who tried the suit framed an issue on the question whether the plaintiff was a citizen of India, another on the question whether the notice under Section 80 of the Code was valid, and a third on the question whether Section 56 of the Specific Relief Act barred the suit. As the only issue considered material was the first one and the other two issues were not pressed, the learned Munsif gave his findings only on the first issue. His view was that the plaintiff's case being that he had migrated to Pakistan due to force of circumstances so that he did not voluntarily acquire the citizenship of Pakistan, raised a question triable exclusively by the Central Government under Section 9(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act. 1955. The learned Munsif also took note of the admission of the plaintiff in his application for a visa that the plaintiff was a Pakistani citizen and of the argument that the admission was not binding upon the plaintiff inasmuch as it was on a question of law. The learned Munsif, however, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff "having entered the territory of India as a national of Pakistan, the defendants would be justified in deporting him to Pakistan." The learned Munsif held that the burden was upon the plaintiff to gel rid of the effect of his own admissions. The question as to what constituted migration to Pakistan was not discussed by the learned Munsif who proceeded on the assumption that the plaintiffs case was that he had migrated to Pakistan. The plaintiffs suit was. accordingly, dismissed by the Munsif.

(3.) THE ground taken in second appeal in this Court, that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, consisting of a few lines, does not comply with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code is not without some force. Nevertheless, after examining the plaint and the solitary statement of the plaintiff, and, having regard to the clarification of the law on the subject by the Supreme Court of India in Kulathil Mammu v. State of Kerala, in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1965, decided on 2nd March. 1966= (reported in AIR 1966 SC 1614) I do not think that any useful purpose will ho served by remanding the case for rehearing. The plaintiff was bound to supply particulars on such difficult and complicated issues as "domicile" as that term is understood in international law or under our constitutional provisions. He has given the scantiest possible statement relating to the alleged temporary nature of his visit to Pakistan. He has also not given the required particulars of the alleged "coercion'' on the part of the defendants. It was held in Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280 at p. 289: