Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Nativity Cannot Be Determined Solely by Birthplace: Madras High Court Quashed Tahsildar's Order, Directs Issuance of Nativity Certificate to Minor Born Outside Tamil Nadu

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court has directed the issuance of a Nativity Certificate to Minor Gaurav Murali, whose application had been previously rejected by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Musiri Taluk. The judgment, pronounced by Justice G.R. Swaminathan on May 13, 2024, underscores the importance of parental roots and domicile in determining nativity, setting aside the respondent's reliance on the applicant's birthplace and current residence outside Tamil Nadu.

Domicile and Nativity Determination: The court emphasized that the determination of nativity cannot be solely based on the applicant's birthplace or current residence. Justice Swaminathan observed, "The expression 'nativity' denotes the roots on which a person is anchored. It is incorrect to deny a Nativity Certificate merely because the petitioner was born in Mumbai."

The judgment referenced multiple precedents, highlighting that the concept of nativity includes the applicant's familial and ancestral connections to Tamil Nadu. The petitioner's father, Murali Chelliah, born in Musiri Taluk and educated in Tamil Nadu, along with his mother from Pollachi, Coimbatore District, established a strong case for the petitioner's nativity.

Witness Testimonies: Addressing the issue of the petitioner's family residence, the court noted that Murali Chelliah and his wife moved to Mumbai for employment with the Shipping Corporation of India Limited, but maintained their roots in Tamil Nadu. "Merely because a person has been absent from the State on account of employment, he or she will not lose his or her permanent residence in the State," Justice Swaminathan stated, quoting from a similar case.

The judgment extensively discussed the principles of evaluating nativity for certificate issuance. The court held that the authorities' rejection based on the petitioner’s birthplace and current residence contradicted established legal principles. The ruling emphasized, "The petitioner's roots are traceable to Tamil Nadu, and he should be considered a native of the State despite his birth in Mumbai."

Justice Swaminathan remarked, "It is obvious that the expression 'nativity' denotes the roots on which a person is anchored. In these circumstances, rejection of the petitioner's application is incorrect and runs counter to the aforesaid rulings."

The Madras High Court's directive to issue the Nativity Certificate within seven days from the date of the order sends a clear message about the broader criteria for determining nativity. This landmark decision reaffirms the importance of considering familial and ancestral connections over mere birthplace or residence, potentially impacting similar cases in the future and reinforcing the legal framework for nativity determination in Tamil Nadu.

Date of Decision: May 13, 2024

Minor Gaurav Murali, Rep. by his Natural Guardian Father Mr. Murali Chelliah v. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District

 

Latest Legal News