It is important in private international law. Domicile of origin and its revival principal gives chance to a person have his domicle , when all of his choices has been abandoned/ lost.
2. DOMICILE OF ORIGIN
It is commonly accepted all over the world that a person acquires domicile
at the place of his/her birth.
It continues to exist till the person has acquired another; It continues to
exist even after the person has given up that domicile, it changes only after
he/she has acquired a new domicile.
i.e. If a person gives up his domicile of choice, the domicile of origin
revives.
A legitimate child takes the domicile of his father & takes the domicile of
the mother only if his birth was preceded by the death of his father;
While an illegitimate child takes the domicile of the place in which his
mother was domiciled at the time of his birth.
Thus domicile of origin is not just based upon the place of birth, nor place
of residence of parents, - it is based on the domicile of the father or
mother.
3. For the revival of domicile of origin, the person has to prove that he
has voluntarily abandoned his domicile of choice.
In Re Lloyds – Evans (1947)
A person with the domicile of origin in England firstly acquired a
domicile of choice in Java & then moved to Belgium and acquired
domicile there.
In 1940’s during German invasion, he went to England, where he
died. He made a will during his stay in England.
Question before English Court, did the person die domiciled in
England.
Court held that, since the person had not abandoned the Belgian
domicile voluntarily, rather he had fled to England because of the
German invasion, & he would have possibly gone back to Belgium
when the circumstances were favorable, he was assumed to have
died domiciled in Belgium.
4. In Sankaran Harindan v. Lakshmi Bharti [Ker(1964); SC(1974)]
Krishnan , an Indian (Keralite) having domicile of origin here,
moved out to England for education supported by his parents. Later
after his studies, with the help of Ms. Hopeworth, rented a home, to
work in British Health Services. And he purchased a mansion in
Sheffield & continued to stay there till the death. During his lifetime
he did not visit India even once.
On the issue about his domicile, Kerala High Court decided
on the view that, during his lifetime, he had communicated to his
friends & had told that he wanted to return to India after earning
sufficient fortune. And so Court held, he had not abandon his
domicile of origin.
But Supreme Court reversed this finding of Kerala High
Court. Supreme Court held, it would appear that till 1939, Krishnan
had the intention to return to India. But when he acquired a
comfortable practice & purchased a house I n Sheffield, his
intention changed. [AIR 1974 SC 1774]
5. In Re O’ Keefe [ Revival of Domicile of Origin]
O’Keefe (British national) died intestate in Naples, living for last
47 yrs of her life. She was domiciled in Italy. She died leaving
movable property & a case of intestate succession arose in English
Court. English law applied the foreign Court Theory & proceeded to
discuss how the Italian Court would have addressed it. The Italian
law, suggested application of law of nationality; the British law in
the instant case.
Since there was no British law on the matter of succession, the
“law of Eire”(Italy) her domicile of origin – while she was born,
when her father was in India, and visited only once, Eire was the
domicile of her father – was applied to the case, being her law of
nationality which she had not abandoned during her lifetime despite
being domiciled in Naples. Here her domicile of origin was revived.
The Indian Succession Act 1925, provides that the new domicile
continues till the former has been revived, or another has been
acquired. [Sec.13]
