JUDGMENT : K.R. Surana, J. Heard Mr. A.J. Atia, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Ms. B. Das, the learned standing counsel for the respondent No.5, Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Senior Counsel together with instructing counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 and Ms. U. Das, learned standing counsel for respondent No.6. 2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon in F.T. Case No.103/2011, by which it was held that the petitioner was a foreigner who had entered India illegally from the specified territory of Bangladesh post 25.03.1971. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the written statement filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was born and brought up in Village-Kowoimari under Rupahihat P.S., under Rangagarah Mouza in the district of Nagaon, Assam. The petitioner had projected that the names of her grandfather and father were enrolled in Voter list of 1965 and 1971 and since 1971 her father has been casting vote till his death. The petitioner has projected Sukur Mahmud @ Sukur Ali as her father and Abdul Hashim @ Hashim as her grand-father. The petitioner claimed that her grand-father and father possessed landed property at Kowoimari Kissam under Rangagarah Mouza in the district of Nagaon, Assam. It is submitted that the name of petitioner was enrolled in the voters list of 1989 and ever since she has been casting her vote till 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner was tagged as a 'doubtful' voter. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner is an Indian citizen. After her marriage with Ramjan Ali of Village-Sokitup, under Samaguri P.S., Nagaon, she has been living with her husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had exhibited 6 documents as Ext.A to Ext.F. However, the learned Tribunal had referred only to three exhibits by referring them as Ext.1 to Ext.3 and there was no discussion on the remaining Ext.D to Ext.F, which included the sale deeds of land which was held by her grand-father and father since the year 1948. Hence, it is submitted that as the learned Tribunal had not considered the evidence on record and that the exhibited documents were discarded without assigning good reasons, for which the impugned opinion stands vitiated. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned opinion be set aside and the petitioner be declared as an Indian citizen. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appearing parties and perused the records received from the learned Tribunal. It is seen that the petitioner has examined two witnesses including herself (DW-1) and Abdul Barek (DW-2). 5. On a perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner has made a mention about the voters list of 1965, 2005 and 2011. In paragraph-4 thereof, it has been mentioned that the father and the grandfather of the petitioner had land property. The evidence-in-chief of the petitioner was recorded on 18.06.2013 and she was cross-examined on the same day. The petitioner was re-examined by the learned Tribunal on 28.12.2016. It is seen that in her examination-in-chief and reexamination, the petitioner had not exhibited any documents. The examination-in-chief of Abdul Barek (DW-2) was recorded on 07.01.2017. The learned Tribunal had also examined him on the same day, but no document was exhibited by him. However, in the record received from the learned Tribunal, six documents are found to have been marked as exhibits, viz., (i) voters list of 1966 containing the name of Sukur Mahmud (Ext.A); (ii) voters list of 1971 containing the name of Sukur Ali (Ext.B); (iii) voters list of 2005 containing the name of Hazera Khatun, i.e. petitioner where the name of her husband is shown as Ramzan Ali (Ext.C); (iv) voters list of 2011 containing the name of Hazera Khatun i.e. petitioner (Ext.D); (v) sale deed dated 19.01.1948 (Ext.E); and sale deed dated 16.11.1962 (Ext.F). It may be pertinent to mention herein that although the learned Tribunal had referred Abdul Barek, the DW-2 as Sarkari Gaonbura, but on a perusal of the examination-in-chief and reexamination by the learned Tribunal, it appears that Abdul Barek (DW-2) is a neighbour and not a Govt. Gaonbura. We find that there is no statement by the petitioner regarding the contents of the two sale deeds marked as Ext.E and Ext.F either in her written statement or in her examination-in-chief. Gaonbura. We find that there is no statement by the petitioner regarding the contents of the two sale deeds marked as Ext.E and Ext.F either in her written statement or in her examination-in-chief. It is trite law that a mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not amount to the proof of the contents of such exhibited documents. In course of their examination, the petitioner and DW-2 had stated that the parents of the petitioner had died while the petitioner was small, yet the petitioner has not shown any document by virtue of which her name was mutated in the record of right in respect of the said land after the death of her father. Thus, we are of the view that the petitioner has not been able to prove that the two sale deeds i.e. sale deed dated 19.01.1948 (Ext.E) and sale deed dated 16.11.1962 (Ext.F) are in any way related to the petitioner or to her grand-father. The third exhibited document which does not find mention in the impugned opinion is the voters list of 2011 containing the name of Hazera Khatun i.e. petitioner (Ext.D), but it is seen that the person connected to the petitioner's name is Late Ramjan Ali, her deceased husband. Thus, the said document does not link and/or connect the petitioner with her projected father or her projected grand-father. Hence, the non-consideration of the said three exhibited documents, viz., voters list of 2011 (Ext.D), sale deed dated 19.01.1948 (Ext.E), and sale deed dated 16.11.1962 (Ext.F) is not fatal to the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal. 6. On examining (i) voters list of 1966 containing the name of Sukur Mahmud (Ext.A); (ii) voters list of 1971 containing the name of Sukur Ali (Ext.B); (iii) voters list of 2005 containing the name of Hazera Khatun, i.e. petitioner where the name of her husband is shown as Ramzan Ali (Ext.C), we find that none of these three exhibited document constitutes a valid, admissible and acceptable link between the petitioner and her projected father or her projected grand-father. 7. The primary issue in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 relates to determination as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not. 7. The primary issue in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 relates to determination as to whether the proceedee is a foreigner or not. Therefore, as the relevant facts are within the knowledge of the proceedee, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proving citizenship absolutely rests upon the proceedee as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 read with Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In the present case in hand, the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden and to prove that she is an offspring of parents of Indian origin. 8. In light of discussions above, this Court does not find that the impugned opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal is vitiated by any jurisdictional error or that there was any failure of giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, as the Court is exercising supervisory jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction, no case is made out for substituting the opinion rendered by the learned tribunal with the view of the Court. This is not a case where the learned Tribunal had refused to admit admissible evidence or that the finding recorded by the learned is dehors the evidence on record. 9. Hence, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. 10. The Registry shall communicate a copy of this order to the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon to be made a part of record of F.T. Case No. 103/2011 for future reference.