M. Hameedullah Beg, J. - (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. He alleged that he had asked the defendants to permit the plaintiff to return to India, but the defendants paid no heed to his requests. The plaintiff also stated that he had applied to the Indian High Commissioner in Pakistan for registration as an Indian Citizen, after the commencement of the Constitution of India in 1950, but had received no reply Then the plaintiff stated that he continued his efforts to secure his return to this country. but the defendants maintained "a callous indifference to the plaintiff's entreaties and the plaintiff continued to languish in a foreign country". The plaintiff then admitted that he came to India on 18 -9 -1954 upon a Pakistani passport No. 089986 "in order to seek the protection of the Indian laws and Constitution" after having given up all hopes of persuading the defendants to meet the plaintiff's demands and having become incapable of bearing the "hardships of a foreign country." In paragraph 8 of the plaint, the plaintiff alleged that he was compelled to apply for a Pakistani passport "on account of the coercion unlawfully exercised by the defendants in the manner detailed above." I may observe here that no details whatsoever of any "coercion" were given in the plaint. The plaintiff seemed to mean nothing more than the defendants' silence, or, to use his own words, a "callous indifference to the plaintiff's entreaties" as equivalent to "coercion". The plaintiff then mentioned that his visa bad expired on 30 -9 -1955 and he was being "threatened by the defendants with deportation." No particulars of what was meant by these threats were given in the plaint. After that, follow the bald assertions that the plaintiff is a citizen of India who has a right to reside and settle in any part of India and that the defendants' threat to deport the plaintiff infringed the plaintiff's fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The plaintiff then mentions that he had given the required notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the defendants and that it had met with no response from the defendants. Hence, he sought the relief by way of the injunction he proved for.
(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 Sec. 80 of the Code was valid, and a third on the question whether Sec. 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 Sec. 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 lower Appellate Court started its judgment by the observation "the appellant admittedly migrated to Pakistan in 1948." It also observed that the solitary statement of the plaintiff had not, quite rightly, convinced the learned Munsif that the appellant had gone to Pakistan in 1948 only on a visit of temporary nature and not with the intention of making Pakistan his permanent home. The appellant's appeal was also dismissed.;