JUDGEMENT : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.1; Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 6; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI appearing for respondent No.3; Ms. L. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, NRC appearing for respondent No.4 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for respondent No.5. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 14.06.2018 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal-9th, Barpeta in F.T.9th(BPT) Case No.114/17 [S.P. Ref. IM(D)T Case No.2387/97] by which the learned Tribunal held the petitioner a foreigner of post 1971 stream. 3. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner had filed her written statement and also several documents which were exhibited as Exhibit-A, Exhibit-B, Exhibit-D, Exhibit-E, Exhibit-F, Exhibit-G, Exhibit-H, Exhibit-I, Exhibit-J and Exhibit-L respectively. 4. The case of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal and as also before this Court, in brief, is that she was born to one Late Suren Chanda @ Surendra Kumar Chanda @ Suren Kumar Chanda and Late Anjali Rani Chanda @ Anjali Chanda and she is the third child of her parents. 5. According to the petitioner, her father Late Suren Chanda @ Surendra Kumar Chanda @ Suren Kumar Chanda had come to India from East Bengal during the partition and stayed in Tripura and thereafter, came to Assam where he was residing till his death. According to the petitioner, she was born at Mangaldai Town Ward No.1 on 11.10.1962. It is also the case that the names of her parents were entered in the voters list of 1965 under Mangaldai town under Legislative Assembly Constituency No.72 Mangaldoi. The names of her parents also appeared in the voters list of 1971 in respect of Mangaldai Town and Legislative Assembly Constituency No.72 Mangaldai. It has been also stated that in the voters list of 1971, the name of her father appeared as Suren Chanda and the name of her mother appeared as Anjali Rani which also appeared in the NRC voters details of 1971. Petitioner also states that her father was serving as a Driver in Chikonmati Tea Estate. 6. It has been also stated that in the voters list of 1971, the name of her father appeared as Suren Chanda and the name of her mother appeared as Anjali Rani which also appeared in the NRC voters details of 1971. Petitioner also states that her father was serving as a Driver in Chikonmati Tea Estate. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed certain documents in support of her claim that she is an Indian citizen, which are as follows, i. Copy of the certificate dated 21.06.1956 issued by the Office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Mangaldai in which it was certified that Sri Surendra Kumar Chanda, S/o Late Tarak Chandra Chanda of Mangaldai Town is a bonafide refugee and known to the said Sub Divisional Officer and that he deserves all sorts of help from the Government. At the time of filing, the said certificate was compared with the original which was exhibited as Exhibit-A. ii. The petitioner also filed certified copy of voters list of 1965 showing the names of her parents which was also compared with the original and was exhibited as Exhibit-B. iii. The petitioner also filed NRC voters detail of 1971 of village-1 No. Ward Mangaldai Town under LAC : 72 No. Mangaldai, Image District : Darrang, Circle: Mangaldai, Mouza Chopai, Legacy Data Code: 320-2017-3614 in which her father’s name has been shown as Suren Chandra, son of Tarak. iv. There is also one certificate issued by the Manager, Chikonmati T.E. dated 16.03.1951 certifying that Sri S.K. Chanda is a good driver. The said document was also compared with the original and exhibited as Exhibit-D. v. Another document dated 28th July, 1973 issued by the Labour Inspector & Conciliation Officer, Mangaldai, was also filed in respect of Sri Suren Chanda, a workman employed relating to certain complaints of alleged non-payment of his due. The said document was also compared with the original and exhibited as Exhibit-E. vi. The Petitioner also filed the Admit Card issued by the Headmaster, Govt. Town Girls H.E. School, Mangaldai in the name of one Alo Rani Chanda, daughter of Shri Surendra Chanda, Roll Ro. 82, which was also compared with the original and exhibited as Exhibit-F. vii. The said document was also compared with the original and exhibited as Exhibit-E. vi. The Petitioner also filed the Admit Card issued by the Headmaster, Govt. Town Girls H.E. School, Mangaldai in the name of one Alo Rani Chanda, daughter of Shri Surendra Chanda, Roll Ro. 82, which was also compared with the original and exhibited as Exhibit-F. vii. One Admit Card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam in the name of Alo Rani Chanda, daughter of Surendra Chanda bearing Roll K 175 No.629 which was exhibited as Exhibit-G. The said document was filed after comparing with the original. viii. Mark sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam in the name of Alo Rani Chanda for the year 1983, dated 03.01.1983 which was also compared with the original and exhibited as Exhibit H. ix. Admit Card issued by the Gauhati University in the name of Sri Alorani Chanda, daughter of Sri Suren Chanda for appearing in the Pre-University (Arts) Examination of 1985, which was also compared with the original and exhibited as Exthibit-I. x. The Electoral Roll of 1989 where the name of one Swapan Kumar Roy appears with his wife Talaka Roy which was exhibited as Exhibit-J. 7. We have also observed that though there is a copy of death certificate in respect of Surendra Chanda who died on 25.10.1985 in the records whether it was exhibited or not, it is not clear from the records. 8. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the daughter of the said Late Surendra Chanda @ Surendra Kumar Chanda @ Suren Chanda @ Suren Kumar Chanda and Late Anjali Rani Chanda @ Anjali Chanda. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that these are sufficient documents which prove that the petitioner is an Indian and not a foreigner. Unfortunately, the learned Tribunal rejected the said plea on the ground of certain overwriting made in the documents and also the fact that the name of the petitioner’s father did not appear in the voters list of 1965 or any other voters lists. 9. Learned Tribunal also observed that though the petitioner’s father was an inhabitant of Tripura, she did not know how long he stayed in Tripura and there is no document to show when her father came to Mangaldai. 9. Learned Tribunal also observed that though the petitioner’s father was an inhabitant of Tripura, she did not know how long he stayed in Tripura and there is no document to show when her father came to Mangaldai. Further the learned Tribunal also observed that the petitioner’s father had no landed property in Assam and also that she did not know since when her father and mother were voters. 10. Learned Tribunal also held that though the petitioner had produced a refugee certificate as Exhibit-A in the name of Surendra Kr. Chanda, the petitioner has not been able to identify the said Surendra Kr. Chanda as her father and also failed to establish her linkage with Surendra Kr. Chanda, who she claims to be her father. 11. As regards the letter issued by the Labour Inspector and Conciliation Officer, Mangaldoi, Exhibit-E, the learned Tribunal held that it was not a public document and not admissible as per law. 12. As regards the Admit card issued by the Headmaster, Govt. Town Girls’ H.E. School, Mangaldoi, the learned Tribunal held that it was not issued by any Board or Council or University and is not verified by the issuing authority and the learned Tribunal also held that the said document as not admissible in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal held that the petitioner has failed to establish the linkage with her projected father and mother and accordingly, declared her to be a foreigner of post 1971 stream. 13. Mr. G. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal, on the other hand, submits that there is no illegality in the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal. 14. It has been submitted by Mr. Sarma that the petitioner has not been able to establish that the said Surendra Chanda, Surendra Kumar Chanda and Suren Chanda are the names of the same and one person. 15. Mr. Sarma further submits that the petitioner also has not been able to show any voters list showing her name along with her parents or any other relatives relating to her parents and accordingly, Mr. Sarma submits that there is no illegality in the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. 17. Sarma submits that there is no illegality in the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. 17. First of all, we would like to make the observation that all the documents which were filed before the learned Tribunal were accepted by the learned Tribunal and allowed to be filed after being compared with the originals as clearly mentioned in the records. 18. We have also noted that there is even not a whisper during the cross-examination of either of the petitioner or her brother who was examined as DW-2, by the State questioning the genuineness of the documents relied upon by the petitioner. 19. We also have noted that some of these documents are as old as 67, 61 and 45 years through which it is sought to be shown that one Surendra Kumar Chanda @ S.K. Chanda @ Suren Chanda, who was a refugee and was an employee in a Tea Company, though the names referred in the said documents are either Surendra Kumar Chanda or S.K. Chanda and or Suren Chanda. The fact that these documents have been produced by the petitioner to claim that her father is Surendra Kumar Chanda or S.K. Chanda or Suren Chanda is not disputed or questioned by the State. In our view the difference in the aforesaid names is of such a nature that it cannot be said that these names would invariably belong to different persons. These documents appear to indicate that the aforesaid names, Surendra Kumar Chanda or S.K. Chanda or Suren Chanda refer to the same person who is the father of the petitioner, specially when these documents bearing these names were produced by the same person claiming to be his daughter. Though one may question by saying that Surendra Kumar Chanda, S.K. Chanda or Suren Chandra are not the names of the same person, but there is also the likelihood that these names refer to the same person. Thus, it may be said that both are possibilities. Yet, there was no question during the cross-examination that they are not the names of the same person. Thus, we accept the plea of the petitioner that these names belong to the same person i.e. the father of the petitioner as claimed by her. 20. Thus, it may be said that both are possibilities. Yet, there was no question during the cross-examination that they are not the names of the same person. Thus, we accept the plea of the petitioner that these names belong to the same person i.e. the father of the petitioner as claimed by her. 20. The Admit Card produced before the learned Tribunal was issued by the Headmaster, Govt. Town Girls’ H.E. School wherein the name of the petitioner, Alo Rani Chanda is reflected to be the daughter of Sri Surendra Chanda. Similarly, in the Admit Card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, the name of the father of the petitioner is shown as Surendra Chanda. In the Admit Card issued by the Gauhati University, Alorani Chanda is shown to be the daughter of Sri Suren Chanda. Therefore, if the petitioner, Alorani Chanda is shown to be daughter of the aforesaid Surendra Chanda and Suren Chanda in these documents, it would be indicative of the fact that Surendra Chanda and Suren Chanda are the same and one person. We are of the view that the variation in the name of Surendra Chandra or Suren Chanda is not of such substantial nature as to doubt the identity of the person who has been recorded either as Surendra Chanda or Suren Chanda or Surendra Kumar Chanda when the petitioner claims these as her father’s names. Though the names Surendra Chanda, Suren Chanda appear different, these are shown with the same name of the petitioner as her father. The name of the petitioner remaining unchanged, this minor variation in the name of the father in our view would not be material. 21. Further, as regards the aforesaid documents, these are more than thirty years old. In the light of provisions of Section 90 of the Evidence Act, there will be a presumption as regards the genuineness of the same and these are the documents produced by the petitioner in whose custody these documents would normally be available, as these documents relate to her own father and as such, fulfill the requirements of law under Section 90 of the Evidence Act and unless questioned or rebutted, these evidences can be acted upon. 22. As mentioned above, during the cross-examination no question has been raised about the genuineness or authenticity of these documents. 23. 22. As mentioned above, during the cross-examination no question has been raised about the genuineness or authenticity of these documents. 23. Learned Tribunal also has stated that in Exhibit-G, the Admit Card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, there was an overwriting on the Roll K175 and further the signature was not legible. 24. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she had filed before the Court a duplicate copy of the Admit Card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam which bears the same names as regards the name of the candidate as well as of the father of the candidate i.e. Alorani Chanda, daughter of Surendra Chanda bearing Roll K-175 No.629. 25. This Court might not have accepted a document which is filed before this Court for the first time and not before the Tribunal. But considering the nature and circumstances of the case and as the State has not filed any objection to the said duplicate Admit Card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, we are of the view that the genuineness of the Admit Card which was issued by the Borad of Secondary Education, Assam and exhibited as Exhibit ‘G’ cannot be doubted in spite of the overwriting in the Roll K175 and merely because the signature of the Controller of Examinations is illegible. 26. Learned Tribunal has also referred to certain overwriting in the Admit Card issued by the Gauhati University. Though we have also noted certain overwriting in the name of Suren Chanda on the alphabet “S”, the overwriting does not appear to be of such nature which would change the earlier overwritten “character”, and thus it is not likely to throw any doubt about the name “Suren Chanda”. 27. As regards the finding by the learned Tribunal that there is not a single voters list with the name of the projected father Surendra Chanda before 1985 except the voters list of 1965, we are not able to accept the said finding for the reason that voters list of 1971 had been filed which shows the name of Surendra Chanda. As regards the finding by the learned Tribunal that there is not a single voters list with the name of the projected father Surendra Chanda before 1985 except the voters list of 1965, we are not able to accept the said finding for the reason that voters list of 1971 had been filed which shows the name of Surendra Chanda. Merely because a person’s name does not appear in a voters list though may cast a doubt on the nationality but is not, in our view, sufficient to draw the conclusive inference that he is not an Indian if there are other material evidences on record to show that he is an Indian citizen. 28. Further, in the NRC details based on the voters list of 1971, the names of the parents of the petitioner appear. Though NRC itself and on its own may not be an admissible evidence for the purpose of proof of citizenship, yet it certainly is a relevant corroborative evidence and hence cannot be ignored. This NRC document corroborates other evidences on record. 29. As regards the finding by the learned Tribunal that the O.P./petitioner did not know from which period her father was an inhabitant of Tripura and that there is no document regarding her father coming to Mangaldai, we are of the view that such ignorance or lack of such document cannot be a ground to disbelieve her, if there are other cogent material evidences produced by the proceedee. 30. We are also not able to agree with the view of the learned Tribunal that as the father of the petitioner did not have landed property in Assam nor she knew since when her parents were voters, can be grounds to disbelieve her. Existence of any landed property is not sine qua non for citizenship. A landless person may still be a citizen of the country. Existence of landed property has no relevance with regard to citizenship. Though existence of landed property may help in the claim that a person is a citizen of this country, but merely because a person does not own any landed property cannot render citizenship of any such person doubtful, if there are, otherwise, cogent material evidences on record to support the claim that the person is an Indian. Though existence of landed property may help in the claim that a person is a citizen of this country, but merely because a person does not own any landed property cannot render citizenship of any such person doubtful, if there are, otherwise, cogent material evidences on record to support the claim that the person is an Indian. Further, merely because the petitioner could not tell the Tribunal as to when her parents were voters, cannot be a ground to disbelieve the testimony. In a cross-examination, a question can be said to be reasonable and legitimate if the witness is expected to know. The question in a cross-examination loses its significance, if the witness is not expected to know the answer. In the present case, the question asked is, whether the proceedee knew since when her parents were voters. In our view, that answer cannot be given properly if the witness is a minor and not well acquainted with the happenings around her. Further, it will be unreasonable to expect to know since when the parents became voters. One may know the answer, yet there is nothing unusual if one does not know. Thus, we are of the view that merely because the petitioner did not know since when her parents were voters cannot be a ground to disbelieve her testimony. 31. We are also not able to agree with the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal that though the O.P/petitioner has produced a refugee certificate as Exhibit-A where the name of Surendra Kumar Chanda is recorded as a bonafide refugee, the O.P has not been able to identify the said Surendra Kumar Chanda to be her father to establish her linkage. We fail to understand how any other document is required to be shown when the petitioner has herself produced the original refugee certificate which was exhibited as Exhibit-A to establish the linkage when she had stated in her evidence and written statement and deposed before the Tribunal which was never denied or disputed by the State, that it was her father’s certificate. In our view, this document itself is one of the documentary evidences in support of her claim that the said Suren Kr. Chanda was her father even though her name may not be shown in the said document. In our view, this document itself is one of the documentary evidences in support of her claim that the said Suren Kr. Chanda was her father even though her name may not be shown in the said document. If the said original refugee certificate does not belong to her father, how she could have procured such a document? Is it case of the State that she had somehow managed to get that original certificate from someone else merely to make a claim that it is about her father. The State has not even made any such suggestion. There was no attempt on the part of the State to show that such certificate was not genuine or it belonged to someone else. 32. As regards the letter dated 28.07.1983 issued by the Labour Inspector & Conciliation Officer, Mangaldai regarding one Sri Suren Chanda, though it may not be a public document, yet, the fact remains that the said document was produced by the petitioner in original as mentioned in the original records of the case and the genuineness and authenticity of the said document was not denied nor questioned. Hence, it cannot totally be divested of its evidentiary value. Are we to accept, when it is not even suggested by the State Govt. that this is also a letter which belongs to someone else but the petitioner somehow managed to get it just to make a claim that it belongs to her father? We do not think we can accept such a proposition when the State has not even made any such suggestion. 33. Similarly, we are also not able to agree with the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the Admit Card issued by the Headmaster, Govt. Town H.E. School, Mangaldai, not a being document issued by any Board or Council or University and not verified by the authority is not admissible in the eyes of law, when the same has not been questioned and when it is more than 30 (thirty) years old at the time when it was filed before the Tribunal, in terms of Section 90 of the Evidence Act. There is a presumption in law that it would be genuine but such presumption has not been disputed nor rebutted. Merely because it was not issued by the Board or Council or University, it does not lose its evidentiary value. It can corroborate other evidences. There is a presumption in law that it would be genuine but such presumption has not been disputed nor rebutted. Merely because it was not issued by the Board or Council or University, it does not lose its evidentiary value. It can corroborate other evidences. 34. Under the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the present case, the petitioner has been able to adduce cogent documentary evidences to show that she is the daughter of Suren Chanda @ Surendra Kumar Chanda @ Suren Kumar Chanda who was already in India in the 1950s. 35. We are satisfied that the petitioner has been able to prove with sufficient cogent documentary evidences that she is the daughter of Surendra Kumar Chanda @ Suren Chanda @ Surendra Chanda who was already in this country in the 1950s as clearly mentioned in the documents referred to above and accordingly, we hold that the petitioner has been able to establish herself to be an Indian and not a foreigner. 36. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 14.06.2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal-9th, Barpeta in F.T.9th(BPT) Case No.114/17 [S.P. Ref. IM(D)T Case No.2387/97] and hold the petitioner to be an Indian citizen and not a foreigner. 37. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed. 38. Records be remitted to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal forthwith.