LawPage

Notes and Articles for Law students

User Tools

Site Tools


evidence_law:judgment_relevant

Judgments – When Relevant

The general principle of law is that judgments whether previous or subsequent are not relevant in any case or proceeding. Every case has to be decided upon its own facts as they exist between the parties to it and not by reference to the judgments in other cases. A judgment in the criminal trial is not relevant to the civil case except for the purpose of showing the fact of trial and conviction for it.

Thus, in a suit for damages for damaging the plaintiff’s trees, the fact that the defendant was acquitted on the same charge in a criminal prosecution was not admitted in evidence. For the same reason, a civil judgment is not relevant to a criminal trial though arising out of the same facts. For example, a judgment in a civil suit for defamation is not relevant to a criminal prosecution based upon the same defamatory statement.

If an action is started against a manufacturer for supplying defective goods and the court holds the manufacturer to be not liable. Subsequently, another person starts an action against the same manufacturer, for supplying the same kind of defective goods. The previous judgment is not relevant to the subsequent case.

Kind of Judgments

Judgments are categorized/ classified into two kinds, namely–

  1. Judgments in rem
  2. Judgments in personam

Judgments in rem

Judgments affecting the legal status of some subject matters, persons or things are called “Judgments in rem‟. E.g. Divorce Court Judgment, grant of probate or administration etc. Such judgments are conclusive evidence against all the persons, whether parties to it or not.

Judgments in personam

Judgments in personam are all the ordinary judgments not affecting the status of any subject matter, any person or anything. In such judgments, the rights of the parties to the suit or proceedings are determined.

Judgments are, however, relevant facts of great importance. Thus, to the general principle that judgments are not relevant, the Act recognizes a few exceptions (Section 40-43).

Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial

Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 speaks about, “Pervious judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial”.

Section 40 permits evidence of the previous judgment, order or decree, which by law prevents any court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, when the question arises whether such court ought to take cognizance of such suit or hold such trial. The object of Section 40 is to avoid multiplicity of suits and to save the precious time of the court. This provision is incorporated under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with the doctrine of Res judicata.

Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction

Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 speaks about, “Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction”. Section 41 deals with judgments in rem, which bind not only the parties and their representatives but the whole world. A judgment in rem under Section 41 shall be conclusive in civil as well as criminal proceedings.

Under this section a final judgment, order or decree of a competent court in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character or to be entitled to any specific thing absolutely (not as against some specific person) is relevant when existence of any such legal character or title to any such things is relevant. A judgment in rem under this section shall be conclusive in civil as well as criminal proceedings.

Conditions: For application of Section 41, the following conditions are to be satisfied:

  1. The judgment should be final judgment;
  2. The court must be competent;
  3. The judgment must be in exercise of any of the following four types of jurisdictions mentioned in the Section viz. probate, admiralty, matrimonial and insolvency;
  4. Such judgment must confer upon or take away from any person any legal character or declare that any person is entitled to such character, or declare that any person is entitled to any specific thing absolutely. Relevancy and effect of judgments etc, other than in Section 41 Section 42 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 speaks about, “Relevancy and effect of judgment, order or decrees, other than those mentioned in Section 41”. According to Section 42, Judgments, Orders or Decrees other than those mentioned in Section 41, are relevant if they relate to matters of public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state. Judgments etc. other than in Sections 40 to 42, when relevant Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 speaks about, “Judgments etc. other than those mentioned in Sections 40 to 42, when relevant”. Section 43 provides that Evidence can be given of a judgment when the existence of the judgment is itself a fact in issue or is fact otherwise relevant to the case. Thus, if a person is murdered in consequence of a judgment, the judgment being a cause or motive of the murder, will be a relevant fact. The illustrations appended to Sec. 43 amply show that the existence of a judgment may become relevant under any of the provisions relating to relevancy (Section 6-55).

For example: - A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him. B is convicted. A afterwards, sues C for the cow, which B had sold to him before his conviction. As between A and C, the judgment against B is irrelevant.

Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment

Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 speaks about, “Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetence of Court, may be proved”. The general rule is, a judgment of a competent court shall be binding on the parties operating as Res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the same parties. Section 44 contains exceptions to this general rule. According to Section 44, a judgment is liable to be annulled/ impeached on the ground of a) want of jurisdiction; b) fraud; and c) collusion.

The existence of a judgment over a matter which is again in question is a satisfactory piece of evidence, through, of course, nothing is said about its evidentiary value in the Evidence Act. The Act only provides that the value of a judgment may be demolished by showing that it was delivered by a court of incompetent jurisdiction, or it was obtained by fraud or collusion.

Such a judgment does not have the effect of Res judicata. A judgment obtained by ‘collusion’ means that there was no cause of action between the parties and by collusion of the parties a cause of action was feigned thus enabling the court to pass its judgment.

About the Author

  • Adv. Abhishek Gupta (Natraj Legal Solutions)
  • Delhi High Court
  • Ph: 9999052336,8700521407
  • E-mail: adv.abhishek3995@gmail.com


Navigation: Home»Law of Evidence

Created on 2020/12/15 18:08 by Japhin Raj • Last modified on 2021/04/09 22:12 (external edit)