JUDGMENT AND ORDER : (K.R. Surana, J.) Heard Mr. K. Lahkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned CGC appearing for respondent No.1; Mr. A.I. Ali, Advocate, learned standing counsel for Election Commission of India, respondent no.2; Mr. G. Sarma, Advocate, standing counsel for FT and Border matters, representing respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate representing respondent no.6. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Md. Abdul Hussain @ Abdul Hasen, has challenged the opinion dated 21.11.2018, passed by the learned Member, nd Foreigners Tribunal- 2, Morigaon, Assam, in. Case No. F.T. (D) 410/11 [arising out of Police Ref. D/N Case No. 3 dated 15.12.1997; E.R.O. Ref. No. LDB/ERO/81/95/3 dated 31.10.1997], thereby declaring him to be a foreigner, who had entered into Assam on or after 25.03.1971. 3. The Tribunal’s records reveals that on 05.06.2018, the petitioner had filed petition no. 507 dated 05.06.2018, praying for amalgamation of the said case with F.T.(C) 138/12, where the petitioner is a party. The prayer was allowed. Accordingly, on 11.06.2018, the petitioner had filed his written statement. 4. In brief, in his written statement, the petitioner had stated that the Verification Officer, without proper enquiry had submitted his report and the allegation was false and against the principles of natural justice. The name of his father is Late Samser Ali and the people also call him More Ali, but in the notice the name of his father is wrongly mentioned as More Ali instead of Samser Ali. He was born and brought up at village- Patuakata, under Laharighat P.S. His father, Samser Ali had casted his vote in 1966 and 1970 from 84 No. Laharighat LAC from village- Patuakata, Dist. Morigaon. His father, Samser Ali, died in the year 1970. The name of his mother is Phulbanu Bibi and she had casted her vote in the year 1975 and 1985 from 81 No. Laharighat LAC and in the said years, his name was wrongly entered in the voter list as Oser Ali and Osan instead of Abdul Hussain. Then, when he had applied for correction of his name, he was marked as ‘D’ voter from the year 1997 till date. The petitioner had reserved his right to file an additional written statement, if required. 5. Then, when he had applied for correction of his name, he was marked as ‘D’ voter from the year 1997 till date. The petitioner had reserved his right to file an additional written statement, if required. 5. In support of his defence, the petitioner had filed his evidence- on-affidavit. In his evidence-on-affidavit, he had reiterated the statements made in his written statement. It was also stated that the case was proceeded against him and his wife, Musstt. Jyotshna Begum and he has no children called Rafiqul Islam and Yasamina Begum as mentioned in the case. In FT(D) 410/2011, his name is mentioned as Abdul Hasen instead of Abdul Hussain. He had stated that he and his wife Musstt. Jyotshanara Begum are Indian citizens. 6. There appears to be a discrepancy in the marking of exhibits, as stated in the evidence-on-affidavit compared to the marking of exhibits in the original exhibited documents. The comparative list of exhibits are as under:- Exhibit no. Document as per Evidence-on – affidavit. Marking of exhibit nos. in exhibited document, available in the Tribunal’s record. Ext.A Voter list of 1966 containing the name of Samsher Ali and other family members. Voter list of 1975, containing names of Jubaid Khatun; Aa. Sum; and User Ali. Ext.B Voter list of 1970 containing the name of Samsher Ali and other family members. Voter list of 1970, containing names of Samser Ali; Aa. Mum; and Jubeda Khatun. Ext.C Voter list of 1975. Voter list of 1966, containing the names of Samser Ali; Fulbanu Bibi; Abdul Sum; Jubeda Khatun. Ext.D Certificate of Village Headman of Patuakata Village in the name of Abdul Hussain Certificate dated 11.05.2016, by the Govt. Gaonburah of No.10 Patuakata Village in the name of Abdul Hussain. 7. At this stage, it may be clarified that as per the evidence-on- affidavit by DW-1, the statements made against the exhibits are extracted in the second column of the chart above. The contents of the original documentary exhibits, which are available in the Tribunal’s record, are set out in column no.3 of the above referred chart, for the convenience of examination and appreciation of documentary exhibits. 8. In reply to the learned Tribunal’s query, the petitioner had stated that his father had expired after casting his vote in 1970. The contents of the original documentary exhibits, which are available in the Tribunal’s record, are set out in column no.3 of the above referred chart, for the convenience of examination and appreciation of documentary exhibits. 8. In reply to the learned Tribunal’s query, the petitioner had stated that his father had expired after casting his vote in 1970. The last rites of his father were performed at village- Patuakata under Laharighat P.S. He does not have certificate of performance of his last rites ‘janaja’ of his father. He had cast his first vote in 1975. He cannot tell the age of his father at the time of his death and as recorded in the voter list of 1966 and 1970. 9. To support his defence, the petitioner had examined Md. Abdul Mum, as DW-2. In his evidence-on-affidavit, DW-2 had stated that the petitioner is his own brother. He had stated that he and his father Samsher Ali had cast vote in the year 1966 and 1970 and that he and the petitioner had casted their vote in 1975 st village- Patuakata under 81 No. Laharighat LAC, but his name was wrongly written as Abdul Sum instead of Abdul Mum and the name of the petitioner was wrongly written as User Ali instead of Abdul Hussain. Since the said year, his father has become ‘D’ voter. He had stated that as the petitioner was declared as ‘D’ voter, he has no landed property of jamabandi in his name as he could not purchase land. His father was a poor person and had no land in his name. 10. In reply to learned Tribunal’s query, he had stated that he has one younger brother. The proceedee, his younger brother, is 10 years younger to him. He does not know the year of death of his mother. His younger brother has no land and property in his name. He does not know in whose land his father resided. His brother had married in the year 1981. 11. The petitioner had also examined one Binuaji Pator, Govt. Gaonburah of Patuakata village, as DW-3. He had stated that the petitioner was a resident of his lot. The actual name of petitioner’s father is Late Samsher Ali, but people also called him as More Ali also and his father’s name appeared in the voter list of 1966 and 1970 from village- Patuakata, under 84 Laharighat LAC. Gaonburah of Patuakata village, as DW-3. He had stated that the petitioner was a resident of his lot. The actual name of petitioner’s father is Late Samsher Ali, but people also called him as More Ali also and his father’s name appeared in the voter list of 1966 and 1970 from village- Patuakata, under 84 Laharighat LAC. He had stated that the petitioner is an Indian citizen by descent. He had issued a certificate (Ext.D) that he is a resident of Patuakata village and son of Late Samsher Ali @ More Ali and Ext.D(1) was his signature. 12. In reply to Tribunal’s query, DW-3 had stated that he had issued Ext.D. Abdul Hussain came to him for the certificate 5 months ago. He did not remember the date of issue of the certificate. He had issued the certificate on the basis of voter list of 1966 and land documents produced by Abdul Hussain of the year 1975. He had stated that he had issued the certificate to Abdul Hussain on coming to know about the FT Case pending against him to help him. 13. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence, found that there were discrepancies in the names of the voters, which was found questionable. The learned Tribunal also found discrepancy in the oral evidence regarding the land of the petitioner. While DW-1 and DW-2 had stated that the petitioner had no land and property in his name and DW-2 also did not know on whose land his father resided, DW-3, the Gaonburah had issued certificate (Ext.D) on the basis of the voter list of 1966 and land documents produced by Abdul Hussain of the year 1975, which according to the learned Tribunal raised suspicion. The learned Tribunal, after discussing all the documentary exhibits, vide the impugned common opinion dated 21.11.2018, held that the petitioner has not been able to prove that he is the son of Samsher Ali or discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove that he is an Indian citizen and not a foreigner. 14. Assailing the impugned opinion, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that though the petitioner had exhibited the relevant voter’s lists of 1966, 1970 and 1975, as well as the link certificate issued by the Gaonburah, the learned Tribunal had mechanically discarded the said cogent and admissible evidence. 14. Assailing the impugned opinion, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that though the petitioner had exhibited the relevant voter’s lists of 1966, 1970 and 1975, as well as the link certificate issued by the Gaonburah, the learned Tribunal had mechanically discarded the said cogent and admissible evidence. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal had overlooked the name of his brother, Md. Abdul Mum, which appeared in the voter list of 1966 and 1970 and thus, the learned Tribunal had not applied its judicial mind. It was submitted that the evidence of the petitioner was discarded on the ground that the petitioner did not produce any land documents and in this regard, it was submitted that it was not the requirement of law that every citizen of India should own land in his/her own name. It was also submitted that the learned Tribunal had committed a grave error in rejecting the petitioner’s evidence only on the ground of insufficiency in pleadings for not disclosing the names of his siblings in his written statement. In the said context, it was further submitted that Md. Abdul Mum, who was examined as DW-2 had categorically admitted that he was the brother of the petitioner and that the petitioner was 10 (ten) years younger to him and it was submitted that though the name of DW-2 appeared in the voters list of 1966 and 1970, the said evidence was discarded on the non-sustainable ground that DW-2 had not proved his citizenship with reliable documents. Hence, it was submitted that the petitioner had successfully established his linkage with his father and therefore, the impugned opinion is liable to be interfered with. 15. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has made his submissions in support of the impugned opinion. 16. Perused the materials available in the Tribunal’s record and also considered the submissions of both sides. 17. In paragraph 6 above, the discrepancies noted in the marking of exhibits have been referred to. In this discussion, the reference to the exhibits is as per the impugned opinion, i.e. (i) voter list of 1975 (Ext.A); (ii) voter list of 1970 (Ext.B); (iii) voter list of 1966 (Ext.C); and (iv) Gaonburah’s certificate (Ext.D). 18. The voter list of 1975 (Ext.A) contains the names of Jubaid Khatun, Aa. In this discussion, the reference to the exhibits is as per the impugned opinion, i.e. (i) voter list of 1975 (Ext.A); (ii) voter list of 1970 (Ext.B); (iii) voter list of 1966 (Ext.C); and (iv) Gaonburah’s certificate (Ext.D). 18. The voter list of 1975 (Ext.A) contains the names of Jubaid Khatun, Aa. Sum, and User Ali; the voter list of 1970 (Ext.B) contains the names of Samser Ali, Aa. Mum, and Jubeda Khatun, and the voter list of 1966 (Ext.C) contains the names of Samser Ali, Fulbanu Bibi, Abdul Sum and Jubeda Khatun. However, except for the statement that his father’s name is Late Samser Ali, the petitioner has not pleaded in his written statement about his relationship with any other person whose name appears in the said voter list. 19. In the aforesaid context, it may be mentioned that in the case of Rashminara Begum v. Union of India & Ors., 2017 (4) GLT 346, this Court had held that material facts pleaded would have to be proved by adducing cogent and admissible evidence. The said view was also expressed by this Court in the case of Saru Sheikh v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 4 GLR 295. In the case of Ayesha Khatun v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 3 GLR 820, and Jehirul Islam v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 5 GLR 670, this Court had held that failure to disclose material facts would lead to adverse presumption. 20. Thus, as the petitioner had not disclosed material facts in his written statement and in his own evidence-on-affidavit as DW-1, the sudden appearance of Md. Abdul Mum, as the projected brother of the petitioner to give evidence as DW-2 does not inspire the confidence of the Court on the truthfulness or admissibility of the evidence of DW-2. DW-2 did not prove his own identity by exhibiting any admissible document. Even if it is accepted that Abdul Mum (name appearing in voter list of 1966), Aa. Mum (name appearing in voter list of 1970), and Aa. DW-2 did not prove his own identity by exhibiting any admissible document. Even if it is accepted that Abdul Mum (name appearing in voter list of 1966), Aa. Mum (name appearing in voter list of 1970), and Aa. Sum (name appearing in voter list of 1975) are the names of one and the same person, yet, DW-1 and DW-2 had not exhibited any voter list after the year 1975 or any other document after the year 1975 showing the presence of the petitioner, his projected father and the DW-2 in India, which is the requirement of Section 6-A (3) (b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, to even presume that they are Indian citizens. 21. In so far as the projection of the petitioner and DW-2 is concerned, claiming that Aa. Sum, (name appearing in voter list of 1975) (Ext.A), Aa. Mum (name appearing in voter list of 1970) (Ext.B), and Abdul Mum (name appearing in voter list of 1966) (Ext.C) are one and the same person, i.e. DW-2, is concerned, it is seen that in his written statement or in his evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner has not taken any such stand. 22. In the said context, it may be stated that this Court, in the case of Basiron Bibi v. Union of India, 2018 (1) GLT 372, held that the voter list having been proved in evidence, the petitioner then cannot insist that only that portion of voter list which favours the petitioner be read and portions which go against the petitioner be over-looked, further holding that this is not how a piece of evidence is to be examined. 23. Similarly, in the case of Borhan Ali v. Union of India & Ors., (2018) 6 GLR 491, 2018 (4) GLT 392, this Court had held that if a proceedee relies on a voters list, he has to rely on the same in its entirety and not in part. He cannot say that he will rely on that part of the voters list which is favourable to the proceedee but would not rely upon that part of the voters list which goes against him, for example, vital discrepancies in name, residence and age. A document has to be appreciated as a whole and not in bits and pieces. 24. He cannot say that he will rely on that part of the voters list which is favourable to the proceedee but would not rely upon that part of the voters list which goes against him, for example, vital discrepancies in name, residence and age. A document has to be appreciated as a whole and not in bits and pieces. 24. The DW-3 had stated in reply to the Tribunal’s query that he had issued the certificate (Ext.D) on the basis of the voter list of 1966 and land documents of the year 1975. However, the voter list of 1966, which was exhibited as Ext.C does not contain the name of the petitioner as a voter along with the name of his projected father. The specific statement of the petitioner as DW-1 and Md. Abdul Mum (DW-2) was that the petitioner and their projected father did not have land, but the DW-3 had stated that he had issued Ext.D after going through the voter list of 1966 (Ext.C) and land documents of 1975. It may be stated that the emphatic submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the evidence of the Gaonburah (DW-3) was wrongfully and mechanically discarded. Thus, as regards the ownership of land is concerned the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 are contradictory to the evidence of DW-3. Thus, if the evidence of DW-3 is accepted then it contradicts the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 on account of land and the link of the petitioner with his projected father vide Ext.C. 25. Merely, by obtaining a certified copy of the voter list the claim of the petitioner that one of the voters of the said voter’s list is his father is not sufficient to prove the existence of any relationship. Such relationship has to be proved in accordance with law through cogent and admissible evidence. 26. In the considered opinion of the Court, in a case under the Foreigners Act, 1946, which is tried as per the provisions of Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, the learned Foreigners Tribunal is required to give its opinion as to whether the proceedee is or is not a foreigner. In such cases, merely by oral evidence, a proceedee cannot prove that a person whose name appears in a particular voter list is his father or mother, as the case may be. In such cases, merely by oral evidence, a proceedee cannot prove that a person whose name appears in a particular voter list is his father or mother, as the case may be. No question would arise of giving an opinion as to relationship as envisaged under the provisions of Section 50 and/or Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872. However, if the names of two voters appear in the same voter list, then a presumption can be drawn that those voters, who reside in the same house and in the same village, might be relatives. However, in the case in hand, the petitioner is not a voter in any of the exhibited voter lists (i.e. Ext.A, Ext.B and Ext.C), thus, there cannot be a presumption that the petitioner is the son of one of the voters, neither such relationship can be proved by oral evidence. 27. Thus, the net result of the discussions made herein before is that the petitioner has failed to discharge his burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove that he is the son of Indian parents, whose existence is in India before the cut-off date of 24.03.1971. 28. The impugned opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal is not found to be vitiated by any jurisdictional error nor that there was any failure in giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, as the Court is exercising certiorari jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction, no case is made out for substituting the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal with any other view of the Court. This is not a case where the learned Tribunal had refused to admit admissible evidence or that its finding is dehors the evidence on record. 29. Hence, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. 30. The consequences of the opinion dated 21.11.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal- 2, Morigaon, Assam, in Case No. F.T. (D) 410/11 [arising out of Police Ref. D/N Case No. 3 dated 15.12.1997; E.R.O. Ref. No. LDB/ERO/81/95/3 dated 31.10.1997], thereby declaring him to be a foreigner, who had entered into Assam on or after 25.03.1971, shall follow as no interference with the same is called for. 31. D/N Case No. 3 dated 15.12.1997; E.R.O. Ref. No. LDB/ERO/81/95/3 dated 31.10.1997], thereby declaring him to be a foreigner, who had entered into Assam on or after 25.03.1971, shall follow as no interference with the same is called for. 31. The Registry shall return back the Tribunal’s records along with a copy of this order to be made a part of the records by the learned Tribunal for future reference.