Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 556 views

    Section 40-Previous Judgments Relevant To Bar A Second Suit or Trail

    Uploaded by

    Aditya Prakash Verma
    This document discusses different types of judgments under Indian law. It discusses two main types: judgments in rem, which apply to the entire world, and judgments in personam, which only apply between the parties. It also discusses the relevance and admissibility of judgments in civil and criminal cases, and exceptions where a previous judgment may not be valid due to fraud, collusion, or an incompetent court. Key points covered include the principles of res judicata and how different sections of the Indian Evidence Act determine the relevance and effect of prior judgments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Section 40-Previous Judgments Relevant To Bar A Second Suit or Trail

    Uploaded by

    Aditya Prakash Verma
    556 views3 pages
    This document discusses different types of judgments under Indian law. It discusses two main types: judgments in rem, which apply to the entire world, and judgments in personam, which only apply between the parties. It also discusses the relevance and admissibility of judgments in civil and criminal cases, and exceptions where a previous judgment may not be valid due to fraud, collusion, or an incompetent court. Key points covered include the principles of res judicata and how different sections of the Indian Evidence Act determine the relevance and effect of prior judgments.

    Original Title

    Relevancy of Judgment

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses different types of judgments under Indian law. It discusses two main types: judgments in rem, which apply to the entire world, and judgments in personam, which only apply between the parties. It also discusses the relevance and admissibility of judgments in civil and criminal cases, and exceptions where a previous judgment may not be valid due to fraud, collusion, or an incompetent court. Key points covered include the principles of res judicata and how different sections of the Indian Evidence Act determine the relevance and effect of prior judgments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    556 views3 pages

    Section 40-Previous Judgments Relevant To Bar A Second Suit or Trail

    Uploaded by

    Aditya Prakash Verma
    This document discusses different types of judgments under Indian law. It discusses two main types: judgments in rem, which apply to the entire world, and judgments in personam, which only apply between the parties. It also discusses the relevance and admissibility of judgments in civil and criminal cases, and exceptions where a previous judgment may not be valid due to fraud, collusion, or an incompetent court. Key points covered include the principles of res judicata and how different sections of the Indian Evidence Act determine the relevance and effect of prior judgments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Judgment is of two types: –

    1. Judgement in rem
    2. Judgement in personam

    1. Judgement in rem: – When a judgment is given on a particular subject matter, it will not
    only remain between the two parties but also be applicable to the entire world.
    2. Judgement in personam: – When a judgment is given on a subject matter, it will remain
    between the parties. It means the judgment will be against an individual.

    ‘’Relevancy of judgement,” it means that every judgement is based upon the facts of each
    particular case. If we understand it in a simple way, it says that each and every case has its own
    importance. The judgement of each case is based upon the subject matter and it is not necessary
    that the judgment of one case is interrelated with another case.

    A civil judgement is not relevant to a criminal trial though arising out of the same fact. A
    judgement in a civil case for defamation is not relevant to criminal prosecution. The previous
    judgment is not relevant to the subsequent case. More importance is given to the facts of the
    cases and on the basis of which judgement is given.

    Section 40- Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or


    trail
    Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 40 defines that, the existence of any judgment,
    will be relevant even in a second trial. Here the rule of ‘res judicata’ applies. It simply means that
    if any judgement which prevents the court from giving attention to such a suit or petition then it
    will be a relevant fact.              

    Section 41- Relevancy of certain judgment in probate, etc,


    jurisdiction
    The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says that a final judgment, order, decree or ruling of a court
    exercising probate (relating to will), matrimonial (marriage, divorce), admiralty (war claims) or
    insolvency jurisdiction is relevant.

    This section consist of two parts: 

    1. It deals with judgement in rem i.e. a kind of declaration about the status of a person and
    is effective to the entire world whether he was a party or not.
    2. A judgement in personam is when a judgment is given to the parties (e.g. a tort or a
    contract action) which binds only the parties and is not relevant in any subsequent case.

    Such judgment is conclusive proof. It refers to a presumption of a particular set of facts which
    cannot be overruled or changed by additional evidence or argument.

    Kinds of jurisdiction: –

     Probate jurisdiction 

    It exercises the power of probate, surrogate, or orphan’s court. It includes the establishment of
    wills; settlement of a decedent’s estate; supervision of guardianship of infants.

    Goutam Shantilal Shah vs State of West Bengal on 9 May, 1996 

    In this case, a question arose, whether district delegates under section 276 of Indian succession
    act 1925 can entertain an application for grant of probate of a will in respect of immovable
    property. But in the end, it was held that if any application is made for grant of probate of the
    will, such application shall be decided in accordance with the law.

     Matrimonial jurisdiction
    It exercises the power of marriage, divorce, et thoro, the nullity suit.

    Santhini vs Vijaya Venketesh

    This case deals with section 13 of Hindu marriage act, in this case, it was held that video
    conferencing is not allowed in matrimonial matters. In the circumstances, issue notice on the
    review petition.

     Admiralty jurisdiction

    It exercises the power of law over cases concerning ships or the sea and other navigable waters.

    Gobind Ram vs Gian Chand on 27 September, 2000 

    This case deals with the matter in admiralty court. The respondent who was alleged to have
    committed breach of contract in London, the admiralty court’s jurisdiction was invoked in
    England.

     Insolvency jurisdiction

    It exercises the power of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of the
    debtor’s main interests is situated shall have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings.

    Krishnaswami Iyer and … vs T.V. Swaminatha Iyer on 26 August, 1924

    This case deals whether vakils have a right of audience in the insolvency of the court at the
    Presidency Town of Madras. G. Krishnaswami Iyer was the appellant and  T.V. Swaminatha Iyer
    was the respondent. After all the discussion it was decided that vakils had no right of audience in
    the insolvency court. 

    Section 42- Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders, decrees,


    other than those mentioned in Section 41 of the Indian Evidence
    Act
    The effect of judgment or order will be relevant, except those which are mentioned in section
    42. 

     Judgements are relevant if they are related to matters of public nature.


     But such judgment, order or proclamation is not conclusive proof of which they state.

    Illustration: – X  sues Y for the murder of his brother i.e. Z. Y alleges the existence of a public
    right of a licensed gun which he used for his protection against Z. The existence of an order in
    favour of the defendant. Similarly in a suit by B against A for the murder of C in which A
    alleged the existence of the same right of way, is relevant but it is not conclusive proof that the
    right way of existence.

     Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra on 5 May, 2009  

    In this case, the Respondent who was Daya Sapra had borrowed a sum of rupees 1.5 lakhs from
    the Appellant Vishnu Dutt Sharma on 10-August,1999. After reminder by appellant to
    respondent, the respondent issued a cheque on 20-October,1999, but the cheque received by the
    appellant with remark of insufficient funds. Then he filed a petition against the respondent.
    Earlier it was said that it was the matter of ‘Res Judicata’ but the final judgement was given that
    it was not the matter of ‘Res Judicata’. So the appeal is allowed however the facts, issues and
    circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

    Section 43- Judgment, order etc, other than those mentioned in


    Section 40 to 42, when relevant
    Judgment, order or decree are irrelevant other than those mentioned in section 40, 41 and 42. In
    this, the previous judgments are not relevant with concern with the subsequent proceeding.

    Let us understand with an illustration. ‘X’ prosecutes ‘Y’ for stealing his horse from him. ‘Y’ is
    convicted. Afterwards ‘X’ sues to ‘Z’ for the horse which ‘Y’ had sold to ‘Z’ before his
    conviction. As between ‘X’ and ‘Z’, the judgment which was against ‘Y’ is irrelevant.

    In the case of The Duchess of Kingston’s Case, it was held that the Dowager Duchess of
    Kingston, Countess of Bristol, was tried and found guilty of the charge of bigamy by her peers,
    the members of the House of Lords. 

    Admissibility of judgments in civil and criminal matters

    Admissibility of judgments means that the quality of being acceptable or valid, especially as
    evidence in a court of law. So here is some admissibility of judgment in civil and criminal
    matters: –

     The principle of ‘Res Judicata’ may apply between the parties in civil suits.
     If the proceedings of civil and criminal cases are for the same cause or reason, then the
    judgment of the civil court would be relevant if the conditions of any sections regarding
    40 to 43 are satisfied, but it cannot be said that the same would be conclusive except as
    provided in section 41.
     In a criminal case, section 300 of C.r.P.C, it is said that once a person is convicted, he
    may not be examined again for the same offence if the conditions which are mentioned
    there are satisfied. 

    Emperor vs Bhagwandas Tulsidas on 20 August, 1945  

    In this case, it was held that the accused murdered Dharamsey and Mr. Haji, and he says that the
    matter will come under Section 42 of the Indian Evidence Act under matters related to public
    policy. But it was held that the matter related to such an unnatural death will not come under
    public concern. Hence, the examination of certain facts is not relevant under any provision
    related to the Indian Evidence Act and therefore unacceptable in evidence.     

    Section 44- Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or


    incompetency of court, may be proved
    Section 44 of Indian Evidence Act says that if the previous judgment is proved fraud, collusion
    (secret or illegal cooperation) or incompetency of court then such judgement does not have the
    effect of res judicata. 

     There are at least 2 parties to a suit or proceeding.


     If any party may show a judgment, order, or decree which is relevant under section 40,
    41, or 42.
     The act only provides that the value of a judgment may be ineffective if these three things
    are present in that case that are: –

    1. Incompetency of the court


    2. If there is fraud
    3. If there is collusion

    Asharfi Lal vs Smt. Koili (Dead) By L.Rs. (1995)

    This case is related to the land reform dispute and Zamindari abolition as in this case, Raja Ram
    was the brother of Smt. Koili and husband of Smt. Nanki. And here the Asharfi Lal who was an
    appellant and he said that he was the only heir of Raja Ram and said for the possession of
    agricultural land of Raja Ram but the Smt. Koili denied that the Asharfi lal was the son of Raja
    Ram. Earlier the judgment was in the favour of Smt. lal but afterwards the evidence of record
    which were produced in the consolidation proceedings the Deputy Director has found that
    Ashrafi lal was the son of Raja Ram and the only heir. 

    You might also like