JUDGMENT : S.P. Khaund, J. Heard Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC; Mr. G. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; Mr. A. I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. The petitioner Fatima Bibi is aggrieved by the impugned opinion dated 30.09.2016 in F.T. Case No. FT-9/79/GKJ/2015 and Ref. Case No. IM (D) T case no. 3012/98 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 9, Dhubri, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner who had entered into India from the specified territory on or after 25.03.1971. The instant case was registered and notices were issued to the petitioner. Earlier this case was registered under the IMDT Act, but was subsequently transferred to the Foreigners Tribunal. The petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and filed her written statement and duly contested the proceeding. She adduced her evidence as DW1 and the evidence of Moinul Hoque as DW2, and exhibited some documents. 2. Through her written statement, Fatima Bibi submitted that she is an Indian citizen and the letter ‘D’ was erroneously inserted against her name in the electoral roll. She tried to establish her lineage with her parents through the certificate issued by the Secretary of the Sagolia Gaon Panchayat and countersigned by the B.D.O of Agomani Development Block. 3. The petitioner further stated through her written statement that she was born and brought up in the village Chagalia Part-II and she studied upto Class- IX in Chagalia High School, P.O. Chhagalia, dist- Dhubri. The Headmaster had issued a transfer certificate dated 17.04.2006, and this certificate was countersigned by D.D.C. Dhubri. She further tried to establish her lineage with her father, through the Kabin Nama, stating that her marriage was solemnized with Nazrul Hoque, son of Late Jaher Mondal, a resident of village Maisha Pt-I, PO-Belguri, district Dhubri. The Kabin Nama was issued by Amir-E-Shorit and General Secretary, district-Dhubri Emarat-E-Sorit & Nodwatur- Tamir Sl No.148 dated 05.11.1989. 4. According to the petitioner, her grandfather's name was enrolled in the electoral roll of 1966-1971 under 35 Golakganj L.A.C. of village Sagolia Part- II as Sahar Uddin @ Sahir Uddin. 5. The Kabin Nama was issued by Amir-E-Shorit and General Secretary, district-Dhubri Emarat-E-Sorit & Nodwatur- Tamir Sl No.148 dated 05.11.1989. 4. According to the petitioner, her grandfather's name was enrolled in the electoral roll of 1966-1971 under 35 Golakganj L.A.C. of village Sagolia Part- II as Sahar Uddin @ Sahir Uddin. 5. The petitioner stated through her written statement that her father's name, mother's name, brother's names, and sister-in-law's names were included in the voters list of 1997 as Sakir Hossen @Sakir Hussain :- Father Fojiran Bibi :- Mother Foizul Hoque :- Brother Moinul Hoque :- Brother Morjina Bibi :- Sister-in-law under 25 Golakganj L.A.C. of village Sagolia Part-II in the District- Dhubri Assam. 6. The petitioner through her written statement also brought on record that her father Sakir Hossen @ Sakir Hussain purchased a plot of land on 04.01.1994 vide Registered Sale Deed No.17 at Sagolia Pt-II, under Agomani Revenue Circle of Dhubri District. This written statement of the petitioner was substantiated by her evidence-in-chief. The petitioner reiterated the contents of the written statement through her evidence-in-chief. She marked the following documents as Exhibits and annexed some documents along with the written statement and evidence-in-chief, as described below:- Exhibit- 1, school certificate, Exhibit-2,Kabin Nama, Exhibit-3,Registered sale Deed No. 17 dated 04.01.1994, Annexure-A, photocopy of Voters list of 1997, Annexure- B,Voters list of 2016, Annexure-C,Voters details of 1966, Vide Legacy data No.340-4031-0264, Exhibit-D, Voters details of 1971 Vide Legacy data No.340-2012-2062. 7. A close scrutiny of the record reveals that the Exhibit-1 was not signed by the Member of the Foreigners Tribunal. Exhibit- 2 Kabin Nama was proved by the DW-1, petitioner. The Member affixed her signature on the photocopy of Electoral roll of 1997- Annexure-A, Electoral roll of 2016-Annexure-B, NRC Voter Details, 1966-Annexure-C and NRC Voter Details 1971- Annexure- D 8. In her cross-examination, the petitioner stated that her father's name is Sakir Hossein and her grandfather's name is Saharuddin. She reaffirmed that she was born and brought up at Sagolia Part-II and studied there up to Class- IX. She further reaffirmed that Exhibit-1 is the school certificate issued by the Headmaster of Chhagalia High School. She further stated that Exhibit-2 was the registered Kabin Nama. She stated that she, along with her husband, shifted to Chhagalia Pt-II from Maisa, and there she cast her vote in the year 1997, along with her husband. She further reaffirmed that Exhibit-1 is the school certificate issued by the Headmaster of Chhagalia High School. She further stated that Exhibit-2 was the registered Kabin Nama. She stated that she, along with her husband, shifted to Chhagalia Pt-II from Maisa, and there she cast her vote in the year 1997, along with her husband. She identified Annexure-1 as the photocopy of the voters list of 1997and Annexure-2 as the photocopy of the Voters list of 2016. She identified Annexure-3 as the legacy data of her grandfather, Sahar Uddin for the year 1971. 9. The Tribunal did not accept the photocopy of the voters list of 1997 as evidence. The certified copies of the voters lists of 1966 and 1971 reflecting the name of the petitioner's grandfather Sahar Uddin were exhibited by the petitioner's brother, Moinul Hoque as Exhibit-B and Exhibit-C. These voters’ lists pertain to 35 Golakganj LAC, whereas a voters list of Tufanganj No. 9 LAC was annexed with the evidence in-chief of DW-2. Petitioner's projected grandfather's name appears in the voters list of 1966 and 1970, but the issue was that the petitioner failed to establish any lineage with her grandfather whose name appears in the voters list of 1966 and 1970. The Tribunal correctly held that the Registered Sale deed Exhibit-3 executed in the year 1994 could not be considered to be a linking document, more so when the name of the purchaser on the Registered Sale deed was overwritten and no explanation or clarification was furnished. 10. DW-2 is the petitioner's projected brother. The evidence of DW-2 depicts that his father’s and uncle's names are recorded in the voters' list of 1966 of village-Jaldhowa, P.O Rampur, P.S. Tufanganj, district Cooch Bihar, West Bengal. DW-2 further stated through his evidence-in-chief in affidavit that his father Sakir Hossen @ Sakir Hussain @ Md. Saker Uddin returned to Assam in the year 1990 and his name was recorded in the voters list of 1990 of 25 Golokganj LAC. Exhibit-D is the voters list of 25 Golakganj LAC which reflects the following names :- Name …. . Sex Age Sakir Hussain Sahar M 55 Ajima Bibi Sayed F 22 Farijan Bibi Sakir F 30 11. Exhibit-C is the voters list of Golakganj for the year 1970 which reflects the following:- Name …. . Sex Age Sohar Uddin Kaji M 64 Sakina Bibi Sohar Uddin F 29 12. . Sex Age Sakir Hussain Sahar M 55 Ajima Bibi Sayed F 22 Farijan Bibi Sakir F 30 11. Exhibit-C is the voters list of Golakganj for the year 1970 which reflects the following:- Name …. . Sex Age Sohar Uddin Kaji M 64 Sakina Bibi Sohar Uddin F 29 12. By exhibiting the documents Exhibit-C and Exhibit-D and through his evidence DW-2 tried to explain that his father was not present in the State of Assam in the year 1966 and 1970 and after he returned from Cooch Bihar, his name appeared in the voters list of 1990 marked as Exhibit-D. This fact was introduced anew by the petitioner as it was not mentioned in the written statement that the petitioner's father shifted base to Cooch Bihar and thereafter, returned to Assam in the year 1990. No document was proved in support of the fact that her father was a voter in Cooch Bihar between 1966 and 1990. Her father’s name appears in the voters list of Golakganj of 1990 when his age was 55 years. 13. The pleadings of the petitioner are very vague. Now, DW-2 has introduced new facts through his evidence-in-chief. The petitioner's father was never a voter in Golakganj LAC till 1990.The electoral roll of 1997 is a photocopy and was not accepted as evidence by the Tribunal. 14. The evidence appears to be a complete departure from the pleadings. The Kabin Nama, on which the petitioner relied on as a linking document was not proved by the Qazi who registered the petitioner’s marriage with Nazrul. The petitioner also failed to produce the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, who issued a certificate to prove her lineage with her parents and grandparents. The petitioner failed to examine the headmaster who issued the school certificate, as a witness. As the documents have not been proved by the authority, the Kabin nama, the school certificate and the Gaon Panchayat certificate were not proved with the aid of contemporaneous records to establish the petitioner's linkage with her parents and grandparents. Moreover, the Member did not sign the school certificate, Ext-1. 15. As the documents have not been proved by the authority, the Kabin nama, the school certificate and the Gaon Panchayat certificate were not proved with the aid of contemporaneous records to establish the petitioner's linkage with her parents and grandparents. Moreover, the Member did not sign the school certificate, Ext-1. 15. It has been held by this Court in Romila Khatun v. Union of India , reported in 2018 (4) GLT 373 , that:- “It is trite that documentary evidence would have to be proved on the basis of the record and the contemporaneous record must substantiate and prove the contents of the document. Proof of document is one thing and proof of contents is another. Not only the document would have to be proved but its contents would also have to be proved. That apart, the truthfulness of the contents of the document would also have to be established from the record. A document or the contents of the document cannot be proved on the basis of personal knowledge. In so far Ext-F document vis-a-vis the petitioner is concerned, Nimai Miah was a resident of Kukarpar village. Petitioner after her marriage with Saijuddin had left the said village and started residing at village Hirajani under Hajo Police Station. When the petitioner got married and since when she had been residing at village Hirajani has not come on evidence. When the petitioner was not a resident of village Kukarpar on the date when the Gaonburah had issued the certificate, Gaonburah could have issued the certificate only on the basis of the record maintained in his office. We also do not know what happened to Nimai Miah after his name appeared in one of the documents i.e., voters list of 1965 (Ext-C). Nimai Miah was 30 years of age in 1965 and in the ordinary course. he would have been around much beyond 25.03.1971. From the voters list of 1997 (Ext-A), we find that Ramila Bibi was 20 years of age. This is the first time the age of the petitioner has come on record. If Ramila Bibi was 20 years of age in 1997, she would have born in the year 1977, which means that her father ought to have been alive atleast till 1976. Therefore, on the basis of the testimony of Md. Ramesh Ali, as discussed above, it cannot be said that Ext-F was proved. If Ramila Bibi was 20 years of age in 1997, she would have born in the year 1977, which means that her father ought to have been alive atleast till 1976. Therefore, on the basis of the testimony of Md. Ramesh Ali, as discussed above, it cannot be said that Ext-F was proved. Besides, there is unauthorised use of the State Emblem of India by the Gaoburah which has rendered Ext-F inadmissible in evidence. Under the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007, Gaonburah is not authorised to use the State Emblem of India in any manner If Ext-F is excluded from consideration, there is nothing on record to establish that Ramila Bibi or Ramila Khatun was the daughter of Nimai Miah of Ext-C (1965). We notice that at that stage, petitioner had introduced Ext-G, an affidavit sworn by the petitioner on 06.05.2016 stating that her father's actual name was Nimai Chan but in the documents, it was wrongly mentioned as Nimai Miah or Nimai Sheikh. Nimai Chan, Nimai Miah and Nimai Sheikh was one and the same person.” 16. It is thereby held that the documentary evidence i.e., the Kabin Nama, the school certificate and the certificate of the Gaon Panchayat Secretary were not proved on the basis of contemporaneous records. The authorities issuing the certificate were not produced as witnesses. Thus, the documents and its contents were not proved by the petitioner who failed to establish the truthfulness of the contents of the documents through contemporaneous records. A document indeed cannot be proved on the basis of personal knowledge. The contents of the certificate needs to be proved from the records. 17. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that DW2 introduced documents and documentary evidence which were not mentioned by the petitioner as DW1 in her evidence and not even in her written statement or written reply. In this aspect, the decision of this Court in Rashminara Begum Vs. The Union Of India , reported in 2017 (4) GLT 346 , is relevant. It has been held that:- “Written statement is the basic statement of defence of a proceedee before the Foreigners Tribunal. In this aspect, the decision of this Court in Rashminara Begum Vs. The Union Of India , reported in 2017 (4) GLT 346 , is relevant. It has been held that:- “Written statement is the basic statement of defence of a proceedee before the Foreigners Tribunal. Keeping in mind the mandate of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, it is incumbent upon the proceedee to disclose at the first instance itself i.e., in his written statement all relevant facts specially within his knowledge having a material bearing on his claim to citizenship of India. Material facts pleaded in the written statement are thereafter required to be proved by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. It is also trite that a party cannot traverse beyond the pleadings made in the written statement.” 19. In this case, the evidence was recorded and exhibited in a haphazard manner. Record reveals overlapping in marking the documents. DW-1 as well as DW-2 identified certain documents as Annexure-A vis-à-vis Exhibit-A, Annexure-B vis-à-vis Exhibit-B, Annexure-C vis-à-vis Exhibit-C, Annexure-D vis-à-vis Exhibit-D and so on and so forth. Some documents were also not signed by the learned Member. Dissimilarities surfaced between the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2, as DW-1 never submitted through her evidence as well as through her pleadings that her father was a resident of Cooch Bihar and a voter of Tufanganj Constituency at Cooch Bihar prior to 1990. On the contrary, DW-2 stated through his evidence-in-chief that their father Sohar Uddin was a voter of Cooch Bihar. The voter's list of Tufanganj No. 9 Constituency reflecting the petitioner's father's name was not proved in accordance with law. The voters’ lists of 1966 and 1970 proved as Exhibit-B and Exhibit-C by the petitioner's brother DW-2 reflects only the name of the petitioner's grandfather and not the petitioner's father. Not a single document was proved by the petitioner to establish her lineage with her grandfather. The Gaonburha’s certificate was introduced by the petitioner’s brother DW2 as Ext-A. 20. The petitioner even failed to prove that her father Sakir Hossain @ Saker Uddin is the son of Sohar Uddin, whose name figures in the voters’ lists of 1966 and 1970, i.e. Exhibit-B and Exhibit-C in Golakganj constituency. 21. The Gaonburha’s certificate was introduced by the petitioner’s brother DW2 as Ext-A. 20. The petitioner even failed to prove that her father Sakir Hossain @ Saker Uddin is the son of Sohar Uddin, whose name figures in the voters’ lists of 1966 and 1970, i.e. Exhibit-B and Exhibit-C in Golakganj constituency. 21. DW 2 also introduced an Annexure-A which reflects his father's name as Mohammad Sakir Uddin and his paternal uncle's name Mohammad Sultan Uddin in the year 1966, shown as residents of village Jalduar, P.O.- Rampur, P.S.- Tufanganj, district of Cooch Behar. So stating, it was submitted that their names were recorded in 1966 in the electoral roll of Tufanganj, No. 9 Constituency vide serial No. 260 and 261 in part No. 219. These facts were introduced anew and both Sakir Uddin and Sultan Uddin are shown as sons of Sahir. As the petitioner failed to mention in her written statement as well as through her evidence that her father was a voter of Tufanganj under Cooch Behar, the new facts introduced by her brother cannot be accepted as cogent and reliable evidence. Moreover, discrepancies in names have also surfaced between the voters list of 1966 and 1970 of Goalpara district and the voters list of Tufanganj, Cooch Behar. On a complete departure from the pleadings, DW2 also exhibited Annexure-E, which is a mohorer's measurement book reflecting the name of Sakir Uddin Mia as a mohorer in the district of Cooch Behar in the year 02.05.1962. Being evidence introduced through the Annexure-A and Exhibit-E produced by DW2, the document cannot be accepted as a procedee has to prove her case on the basis of her pleadings. Parties cannot traverse beyond pleadings. 22. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal-Versus- Union of India and Another reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665 that:- “26. There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof upon the person concerned who asserts to be a citizen of a particular country. In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth (ii) place of birth (iii) name of his parents (iv) their place of birth and citizenship. Sometimes the place of birth of his grandparents may also be relevant like under Section 6-A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act. In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth (ii) place of birth (iii) name of his parents (iv) their place of birth and citizenship. Sometimes the place of birth of his grandparents may also be relevant like under Section 6-A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act. All these facts would necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the authorities of the State. After he has given evidence on these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and can then lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. If the State authorities dispute the claim of citizenship by a person and assert that he is a foreigner, it will not only be difficult but almost impossible for them to first lead evidence on the aforesaid points. This is in accordance with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 23. Thus, the principle governing Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 is in tune with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. of the Foreigner Act, 1946 reads:- “Burden of proof:- If in any case not falling under section 8 any question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner of a onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such of a particular class or description the particular class or description, as the case may be, shall, anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), lie upon such person." 24. In this case, the petitioner failed to discharge her onus as mandated by Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 25. In view of the following discussions, it is held that the petitioner failed to establish her lineage with her grandfather, Sohar Uddin, whose name figures in the voters’ lists of 1966 and 1970. The petitioner also failed to establish any linkage of her father with her grandfather. Not a single document was proved to establish that the petitioner's father was a voter or an Indian citizen. 26. The petitioner also failed to establish any linkage of her father with her grandfather. Not a single document was proved to establish that the petitioner's father was a voter or an Indian citizen. 26. The petitioner introduced through the evidence of DW-2 that her father was not a voter in the district of Goalpara, as he shifted his residence to Tufanganj at Cooch Bihar. The electoral roll of 1966 was produced by the petitioner to prove that her father was a voter in Cooch Bihar was correctly not accepted as evidence by the Tribunal. Moreover, discrepancies in the names of the petitioner’s father and grandfather in the voters list of 1966 and 1990 of Cooch Behar and the voters list of 1966 and 1971 were not properly explained. The petitioner failed to prove other documents through which she tried to establish that she is a descendant of an Indian citizen. It is thereby held that no infirmity is discernible in the decision of the learned Tribunal holding the petitioner to be a foreigner from a specified territory who entered into Assam after the cut off date 25.03.1971. 27. The challenge to the impugned opinion fails and resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the consequences of the impugned order dated 30.09.2016 in F.T. Case No. FT-9/79/GKJ/2015 and Ref. Case No. IM (D) T case no. 3012/98 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal No. 9, Dhubri, thereby holding the petitioner above-named as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream, shall follow. Bail order dated 09.02.2017 stands vacated. 28. There shall be no order as to costs. 29. The Registry shall send back the Tribunal’s record along with a copy of this judgment and order, to be made a part of the record by the learned Tribunal for future reference.