Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi 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