024-NLR-NLR-V-59-M.-B.-CHANDIRAM-et-al.-Appellants-and-THE-COMMISSIONER-FOR-REGISTRATION-OF-.pdf
H.>r. G. FJERNA2vDO, J .-^-Chandiram v. The Commission tv-for—
Registration of Indian and Pakistani Residents
85
Present : H. N. G. Fernando, J., and T. S. Fernando, J.
31. B. CHANDIRA3I et al., Appellants, and THEC03I3HSSI0NER FOR REGISTRATION1" OF INDIAN"
AND PAKISTANI RESIDENTS, Respondent
Citizenship Cases 44, 4-5 and 46 of 1956
Indian and Pakistani Residents {Citizenship) Act, No. 3 of 1019—Section G (2) {i)—“ Lawful means of livelihood ”.
An adult unmarried daughter -who is maintained by her father who ia abloto support himself and his dependants has a “lawful means of livelihood ”within the meaning of section 6 (2) (i) of the Indian and Pakistani Residents(Citizenship) Act.
A-
TiPPEALS under section 15 of the Indian and Pakistani Residents(Citizenship) Act-.
P. R. Crossetle-Thambiah, Q.C., with V. K. Palasuntheram, for theapplicants appellants.
Ranganathan, for the respondent in Nos. 44 and 45.
Walter Jayaicardena, for the respondent in No. 46.
Cur. adv. vult.
July 25, 1957. H. N. G. Fersasdo, J.—'
The three applicants in these eases are the adult daughters of oneChandiram who is proprietor of a djre-works and silk shop in the town of .Kandy. The father himself applied for the registration as citizens of him-. self, his wife and a number of minor children, but the three daughtershad to make separate applications as they had attained their majorityat the relevant time…–
SG
H. 5f. G. FERNANDO,. Registration of
J.—Chand'ram v. The Commissioner for
Indian and Pakistani Residents '.
The Deputy Commissioner chose to deal with these three applicationsbefore the father’s application had been determined and, in the result,the position at the time these appeals were argued was that the wholefamily, except these three applicants, had been registered as citizensupon the father’s application. Had the latter application been firstdetermined some at least of the matters which prejudiced the case forthe three daughters may not have arisen. • '•
All three applications have been refused on the ground that the appli-cants have failed to satisfy the requirement of the Act that an applicantshould either possess an assured income of a reasonable amount or elsehave a suitable business or employment or other lawful means of liveli-hood. It is clear that none of the applicants have either an assuredincome or any business or emplojment, so that the only arguable groundof appeal is that the Deputy Commissioner erred in deciding that theapplicants did not have a “ lawful means of livelihood
According to the evidence the father has been resident in Ceylon forabout twenty years and appears himself to be a person who through hisbusiness is well able to support himself and his dependants. He himselfintends to support these adult daughters unless and until they marryand cease to require his help. The daughters live with him and aremaintained by him in the same way as his minor children are and there isno reason to suppose that the father will ever be unable or unwilling tosupport them. The business which he carries on is registered in hisname and even if the suggestion that it belongs to a joint Hindu familybe correct, it is conceded that the daughters have a right to rely for theirmaintenance on the profits from the business. As to two of the daughtersthere is a clear compliance with the section since they do in fact assist intheir father’s business, so that the expenses of maintaining them canproperly be regarded as remuneration in kind for work performed bythem. But I do not think that the term " lawful means of livelihood ”would include only income or earnings in exchange for services. Havingregard to the object of the requirement, namely the avoidance of thepossibility that registered citizens may become a charge oii the publicrevenue, regard must in my opinion be had to the fact that among peopleof the class concerned it is customary for adult daughters to be maintainedby their parents. This custom is in accordance with our law that anadult daughter who has no other means of support is dependent on herparents who have a corresponding duty to maintain her *. Indeed thefavourable determination of the father’s own application for citizenshiphas really concluded the matter which I am now considering, for one ofthe matters which the father must be presumed to have proved was thathe had a suitable business to support himself and his dependants includingthese three daughters.
In the case of two of the apjiellants the Deputy Commissioner hasalso held that they failed to prove uninterrupted residence in Ceylonduring the periods specified in his orders. These were periods in whichthe two appellants concerned were minors, and the Deputy Commissionerdeclined to accept the oral evidence as to their residence. Here again,
* Lee— Introduction to Roman-Dutch Law {5th Edn.) p. 40.
WKEItASOOTlIYA, J.—Ponnantbalani v. The Municipal
Commissioner, Colombo-
S7
however, the disbelief of the oral evidence has turned out to be un-.justified because the father’s application could not have been allowedunless all the children had been “uninterruptedly resident during theirminorit}'
1’or these reasons the appeals must be allowed with costs fixed atRs. 52-50 in each case, and the Commissioner will take necessary stepson the footing that a prima facie case has been made out for theregistration of each of the appellants as citizens.
T. S. FERXiOTO, J.—I agree.
Appeals allowed.