- (1.) As a common question of law touching upon the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine the question as to 'whether, when or how any person has acquired citizenship of another country' arises in both the appeals and therefore, they were set down for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Re. C. A. No. 1339 (N) of 1971
(2.) Respondents filed Civil Suit No. 231 of 1955 on May 3, 1955 against the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union of India praying for a declaration that the respondents are the citizens of Indian Union and are entitled to permanently live at Aligarh or any other part thereof and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from deporting them to Pakistan or from prosecuting them under various statutes on account of their alleged failure to return to Pakistan. The suit was contested on diverse grounds one such being that the respondents had migrated to Pakistan and returned to India on a passport issued by the Government of Pakistan. This contention squarely raised the issue whether, when or how the respondents-plaintiffs had acquired the citizenship of Pakistan. The trial Court decreed the suit and after an unsuccessful appeal by the present appellant the matter reached the Allahabad High Court. The learned Judge set aside that judgment and decree and remanded the case to the trial Court to decide the case afresh in the light of the law laid down in Abida Khatoon v. State of U. P., AIR 1963 All 260. After remand the suit of the respondents was decreed and the decree was affirmed in first appeal. When the matter came up before the High Court in the second appeal-before a learned single Judge, a contention was raised that in view of the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shah Mohammad. (1969) 3 SCR 1006 : (AIR 1969 SC 1234) the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit once the contention as envisaged by subsection (2) of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) was raised. This contention on behalf of the appellant was negatived by the learned Judge observing that on the earlier occasion the High Court had held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the remand was limited to the question of determination of issue on merits only. It was further held that as the earlier decision is binding between the parties, the appellant cannot be allowed to reagitate the same. Accordingly the second appeal was dismissed. Hence this appeal by special leave. Re. C. A. No. 2044(N) of 1971
(3.) Respondents filed Civil Suit No. 233 of 11955 on May 3, 1955 for the same reliefs as in the cognate case. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit holding that the respondents have migrated to Pakistan and as they have returned to India on a passport issued by the Government of Pakistan they have become citizens of Pakistan which indicates that they have renounced their Indian citizenship. Plaintiffs preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge. The learned Judge agreed with the view taken by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs thereupon preferred second appeal to the Allahabad High Court. The learned single Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the first appellate Court and remitted the matter to the trial Court for a fresh adjudication in accordance with the principles of law enunciated in the case hereinbefore quoted. After the remand the trial Court decreed the suit of the respondents and the second appeal by the original defendants failed on the same ground on which the appeal in the cognate case failed. Hence this appeal by special leave.;