AKBAR KHAN ALAM KHAN AND ANOTHER versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 05-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

,, 
, 
.., 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
779 
appellant. No question as to the effect of the amend-
ed definition on the appellant's status fell for our de-
cision in this case for we were only concerned with his 
status in 1953. We would also point out that no order 
appears to have been made concerning the appellant 
under s. 3(2)(c) and we are not to be understood as 
deciding auy question as to whether such an order 
could or could not have been made against the ap-
pellant. 
Appeal allowed. 
AKBAR KHAN ALAM KHAN AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. C. DAS GUPTA and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Citizenship-Suit for declaration of rights as Indian Citizens-
]urisdiction of Civil Court-Citizenship Act, r955 (57 of r955), 
s. 9(2). 
The only question that a civil court is precluded from 
determining under s. 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, read with 
r. 30 of the Rules framed under the Act is the question as to 
whether, \Vhen or how any person has acquired the citizenship 
of another country. They are not prevented from determining 
other questions concerning the nationality of a person. 
Where, therefore, a suit brought for a declaration that the 
appellants were Indian Citizens, where they the1nselves had 
raised the question of acquisition of foreign citizenship, \Vas 
resisted on the ground that they had never been Indian Citi-
zens, and the courts below dismissed the suit in its entirety, 
Held, that the courts below were in error in holding that 
the suit was barred in its entirety bys. 9(2) of the Act. 
They should have decided the question as to whether the 
appellants had ever been citizens ot India and, if the finding 
was in their favour, should have stayed the suit till the Cen-
tral Governrnent had decided whether such citizenship was 
renounced and if the finding was against the appellants dismiss-
ed the suit. 
Fida Hussain 
v. 
State of 
U ttar Pradesh 
Sarkar ]. 
April 5. 
• 
Akbar l(han 
Alam f(han 
v. 
Union of India 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
18 of 1961. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated January 23, 1960, of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court at Indore in Second Appeal No. 473 of 
1959. 
z. F. Bootwala, E. Udayarathnam and S. S. Shulcla, 
for the appellants. 
JJ!. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, B. Sen 
and T. M. Sen, for respondent No. 1. 
H. L. Khaslcalam and I. N. Shroff, for the respon-
dents Nos. 2, 3. 
1961. 
April 5. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Sarkar J. 
SARKAR, J.-This appeal raises the question whe-
ther the suit filed by the appellants was properly dis-
missed on the ground that a civil court had no juris-
diction to entertain it. The Courts below held that a 
civil court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit was bar-
red by s. 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 
The appellants had filed the suit for a declaration 
that they were citizens of India and for an injunction 
restraining the defendants from removing them from 
India. The defendants were the Union of India, the 
State of Madhya Pradesh and the District Magistrate, 
Jhabua, in Madhya Pradesh. The appellants stated 
in the plaint that they were citizens of India and had 
not ceased to be such citizens. They said that in the 
beginning of 1953 they went to Pakistan for a tem-
porary visit without a passport but when they wanted 
to return they were compelled to obtain Pakistani 
passports. They stated that they obtained these pass-
ports only as a device for securing their return to 
India and had really been compelled to obtain the 
passports against their will. They further stated that, 
therefore, they could not be said to have acquired 
citizenship of Pakistan. They also stated that they 
had made all efforts for the cancellation of the pass-
ports and to obtain permission to stay in India per-
manently but were unsuccessful. They said that the 
-
.. 
I 
• 
• 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
781 
State of Madhya Pradesh served on them an order 
dated November 11, 1955, under s. 3(2) of the Foreig-
ners Act, 1946, asking them to leave the country. 
They contend that this order was illegal and without 
justification as they were not foreigners. 
In the written statement filed by the defendants it 
was stated that the appellants had left India between 
March and May, 1948, and they returned for the first 
time on a temporary Pakistani passport sometime in 
the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.