Relevancy of Judgments of Courts of Justice
Relevancy of Judgments of Courts of Justice
Relevancy of Judgments of Courts of Justice
PRINCIPLE
Section 40 incorporates the principle of res judicata i.e. a judgment would be relevant in
every case where it has the effect of res judicata.
Thus, the principle is that once the issue is tried and determined by a civil or criminal
court, the same cannot be reopened between the same parties to such an adjudication or
their privies.
No one should be harassed twice, if it is clear to the Court that the case is for the same
issue which has been already been decided by a competent court.
RES JUDICATA
Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code lays down the provision for res judicata.
‘Res’ means a particular matter and ‘Judicata’ means judicial decision on the merits of
the case.
Therefore, Res Judicata means the decision of a Court on the merits of the case.
It applies as a bar on any future litigation or case on the same issue which has been
previously decided by the Civil Court.
OBJECT
To prevent multiplicity of suits and interminable disputes between parties.
To give finality to judicial decisions.
To achieve finality in litigation.
To prevent litigation on the same issue in the future.
APPLICABILITY
S.40 applies to the following:
Civil Cases.
Criminal Cases.
CIVIL CASES
In the following conditions the earlier judgment in a Civil Suit will be relevant to have an effect
of preventing the Court from taking cognizance of the case:
Cause of action agitated before a Civil Court; and
Between the same parties; and
Such case is decided.
2
Then no new action can be brought on the same cause of action and between the same parties
and if the plaintiff purposes to trouble the defendant again with the same cause of action, the
earlier judgment will be relevant because it will have the effect of preventing the Court from
taking cognizance of the case.
CRIMINAL CASES
The same principle applies to criminal proceeding also, in order to prove its applicability the
following shall be proved:
The person should have been once tried for an offence rising out of a particular set of
circumstances; and
He must have been acquitted or convicted.
Then he cannot be tried again for the same offence and it will be a complete defence for him to
show that he has already been acquitted or convicted of the said offence.
Thus the judgment recording his conviction or acquittal would relevant in case he is tried again
for the same offence, arising out of the same set of circumstances.
PRINCIPLE
Section 41 speaks about the judgment in rem i.e. against the whole world.
A judgment in rem would always be admissible, irrespective whether they are inter
parties or not.
Section 41 forms an exception to the general rule that a judgment is conclusive against
the parties or their privies.
It further directs that it would be binding only when a final judgment is rendered.
Rendition (Rendering) of a final judgment would be binding on the whole world being
conclusive in nature.
As when such a judgment is rendered in one proceeding, subject to the admissibility, it
may be produced in another proceeding.
JUDGMENTS IN REM
Judgments for the purpose of relevancy are of two kinds:
1. Judgment in Rem.
2. Judgment in Personam.
A Judgement in Rem is a kind of declaration about the legal character/ status of a person
(for e.g. that he is insolvent ), effective against every body whether he was a party to the
proceeding or not.
It is a conclusive evidence against all.
Conditions for impeachment of a judgment in rem:
1. That the Court had no jurisdiction; or
2. That the judgment was obtained by fraud or collusion; or
3. That it was not given on the merits; or
4. That it was not final. e.g. interlocutory.
4
PROBATE JURISDICTION
It means a Court having the jurisdiction under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to
pronounce upon the genuineness of a deceased person’s Will.
It acts as a conclusive evidence regarding the contents of the Will and the rights of the
person affected by such Will.
A judgement of a Court in Probate is in rem and binds all the world.
For instance, a grant of probate in favor of X will be conclusive evidence of the fact that
as long as the judgment remained in force, X was the executor of P’s will.
The grant of probate cannot be set aside, unless it is proved by the person challenging it
on the ground of fraud or collusion, to the satisfaction of the Court.
However, the Court acting under Probate jurisdiction has no power to decide whether a
document was forged or not under the Penal laws.
MATRIMONIAL JURISDICTION
The matrimonial jurisdiction is conferred on the Courts by the following Acts:
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Special Marriage Act, 1954.
The Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939.
The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936
The following disputes/issues lie before the Court having matrimonial jurisdiction:
Divorce decree.
Nullity of marriage.
Judicial separation.
Restitution of conjugal rights.
A judgment relating to a person, whether he is married or divorced, is judgment in rem.
A decree of nullity of marriage has the same effect.
However, the decree of restitution of conjugal rights is not considered as a judgment in
rem.
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
Admiralty jurisdiction decides cases arising out of war claims.
It is conferred on the High Courts under the Letter Patent.
A judgment by such Court acting under Admiralty jurisdiction only applies in rem when
the Court emphatically stated that all the authorities concerned shall be bound by the
order.
For e.g. a decision of the Prize Court, that a particular ship was neutral or a Cargo was
contraband, is a judgment in rem.
INSOLVENCY JURISDICTION
5
RELEVANCY OF JUDGMENTS
Such judgments are relevant to every case or proceedings in which a matter concerning
such public interest is again in question.
It shall not be a conclusive proof,
Thus, the party effected by it may lead evidence to the contrary and the show that all the
information was not presented before the Court when the previous judgment was
pronounced.
7
PRINCIPLE
S.43 contemplates that Evidence can be given of a judgment which is itself a fact in issue
or a relevant fact.
For e.g. if a person is murdered in consequence of a judgment, the judgment being a
cause or motive of the murder, will be relevant fact u/s. 7 & 8.
A judgment may be relevant for showing the state of mind, it may be useful for
overthrowing the defence of accident etc.
APPLICABILITY
The S.44 applies to the following:
Civil proceedings.
Criminal proceedings.
Section 40, 41 and 42.
*It does not apply to Section 43.
FRAUD OR COLLUSION
Fraud is an extremely collateral act which vitiates the most solemn proceedings of courts
of justice.
Fraud can be exercised by withholding vital facts from the Court.
Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing some
unfair or undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of another.
Collusion in relation to a judicial proceeding is a secret agreement between two or more
persons that one should institute a suit against the other in order to obtain the decision of
a judicial tribunal or Court for sinister purpose.