JUDGMENTS OF COURTS WHEN RELEVANT
ADV. USHA ANDEWAR
Part II – Chapter II – Sections 34 to 38
Judgments of courts when relevant
INTRODUCTION
Previous judgments play a very crucial role as they help in determining whether
a court is allowed to hear a new fresh case or hold a trial. If a similar issue in
any past case has been decided already, the previous judgment may either
prevent the new case from going forward or strongly influence its outcome.
1|Page
“Relevancy of judgment” refers to the fact that each judgment is grounded in the
specific facts of each case. Simply it asserts that every single case has unique
significance. Every case is decided according to its own facts; the decisions made
in one case do not always have to be connected to those in another. Even though
it stems from the same fact, a civil judgment has no bearing on a criminal
prosecution. A civil defamation case’s verdict has no bearing on a criminal
prosecution. The later case is unrelated to the earlier ruling. The case facts and
the criteria used to render a decision are given more weight.
The actual meaning of judgement under the code of civil procedure,
1908. Section 2 (9) of CPC defines it as a decision which is given by the judges
in a court regarding the rights, duties and liabilities of an individual. The basic
theory of law is whether the previous judgements or the following judgements
are not relevant, as every case is decided by its own facts. The judgement
depends upon the facts of the case of particular parties and not by the references
to the judgement of other cases.
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.
Judgements of the court of justice are regarded as relevant in legal proceedings
when they pertain to public matters. A number of sections of the Adhiniyam
address the applicability of court rulings. These are a few of the important
sections :-
2|Page
❖ Section 34 – Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial
❖ Section 35 – Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction
❖ Section 36 – Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders, decrees, other than
those mentioned in Section 35 of the BSA.
❖ Section 37 – Judgment, order, etc., other than those mentioned in Section
34 to 36, when relevant.
❖ Section 38 – Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment or incompetency of
Court, may be proved.
Section 34 – Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial
• Res judicata under section 11 of C.P.C
• Double jeopardy under Section 337 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in criminal proceedings.
• Deals with ‘judgment in personam’ which binds only the parties to the
suit or their privies and not the world at large.
The object of Section 34 is to save the time of the court and avoid the trial of
similar suits as well; in simple words, it provides that the existence of previous
judgment, order, or decree is a relevant fact.
• For instance, if ‘X’ and ‘Y’ are two parties, ‘X’ sues ‘Y’ for fraud and the
court has decided the case in favor of ‘Y’ but later ‘X’ again files a suit
against ‘Y’ for the same case.
• So, it can be said that once a judgment is given by a court over a particular
subject matter, that court has a right to bar the trial of the case and here
Section 34 will apply.
Prior rulings applicable to preclude a retrial or lawsuit
A judgment’s existence will be relevant even in a retrial, according to Section 34
of the BSA. In this case, res judicata is applicable. It merely indicates that it will
3|Page
be a relevant fact if any judgment forbids the court from considering such a suit
or petition.
Section 34 refers to judgments, orders, and decrees that have the effect of
prohibiting multiple suits in the same case. To establish Lis Pendens or Res
Judicata, or the bar on a subsequent suit or trial, this section is crucial. Section
34 restricts itself to the admissibility of judgments and does not deal with the
questions of evidence.
It is based on two Latin maxims, which are :-
1. Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa, which means that no
one can be vexed more than once for the same offence. It is based on the
principle of private justice.
2. Interest Republicae Sit Finis Latium which means that having an end
to litigation is in the best interest of the state. It is based on public policy
and aims at the suits not being prolonged.
The maxim interest was declared by the Apex Court in Indian Council for Enviro-
Legal Action Vs. UOI (2011) 8 SCC 161. Republicae ut sit finis litium states that
the conclusion of litigation following a protracted hierarchy of appeals is in the
public interest. Allowing a second appeal could be tantamount to opening a flood
gate, resulting in more injustices overall at the expense of rights in society. The
dictum guarantees that the idea of :-
1. Private convenience
which states that a person should not be vexed twice for the same cause.
2. Public policy
that it is in the best interests of peace and harmony of a state and its
people and the finality of litigation is followed.
4|Page
This section will be applicable where the court has jurisdiction to decide upon
the matter and one of the parties to the case points out that the case shouldn’t
be heard by the court, because it has already been decided Lakshanchandra Vs.
Ram Das, AIR 1929 Cal 374.
Case of Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango Vs. Narayan Devji Kango
Mr. Siddopant and Mr. Krishnarao were members of a Hindu Undivided Family
business that was the subject of the case. A disagreement over family property
emerged in the wake of the deaths of Siddopant in 1899, Gundo (Siddopant’s
son) in 1901, and Krishnarao in 1897.
When the matter reached trial, the plaintiff argued that the adopted son of
Lakshmibai, Gundo’s wife, was a matter that needed to be decided upon by the
court before any portion of the property could be distributed. The court held that
since a court had previously made a decision on this matter, it was unnecessary
for the court to delve further into this particular aspect of the case.
“Res judicata”
This word may be familiar to many of you. “Judicate” denotes “already decided,”
while “Res” denotes “subject matter.” Consequently, it states that a decision has
been made. Section 11 of the C.P.C. defines it.
For instance - “A” and “B,” are suing each other over property-related issues.
However, the court dismissed the lawsuit, so “A” filed a new lawsuit against “B.”
Therefore, it was stated that the res judicata formula applies and that a court
loses jurisdiction once it issues a judgment on a specific matter.
Section 337 of BNSS prohibits a person who has been tried and found guilty
from being tried again. Therefore, the judgment that found him guilty will be as
such, be applicable to any case or legal proceeding where he is accused of
committing the same crime.
5|Page
Section 35 - Relevancy of certain judgment in probate, etc., jurisdiction
• Final judgment, order or decree of a court exercising probate, matrimonial,
admiralty or insolvency.
• Are ‘judgments in rem’ and conclusive in nature which decide the legal
character of a person and which is binding against the world at large apart
from the parties to the case.
• These Judgments are considered relevant as they grant or take away legal
rights or statuses, like declaring someone as an heir or determination of
ownership of property.
• It is irrebuttable presumption of law.
The law under BSA states that a final judgment, order, decree or ruling of a court
exercising probate (relating to will), matrimonial (marriage, divorce), admiralty
(war claims, maritime) or insolvency jurisdiction is relevant.
This section 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.
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.
Judgments covered
• Final judgments, orders, or decrees
• Passed by a competent court exercising one of the four mentioned
jurisdictions.
• Conferring, taking away, or declaring
• Any legal character upon or from a person.
• A person to be entitled to such a character.
6|Page
• A person to be entitled to any specific thing (absolutely, not
against a specific person).
State (Delhi Administration) & Anr Vs. Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine (2009)
Shamim Amna Imam was a testatrix in this instance—someone who left a legacy
or made a will. The aforementioned properties belonged to her. On 3.5.1998, she
signed a will in support of the appellant, Syed Askari Hadi Ali, and on 23.5.1998
she passed away. Regarding the will, Syed Askari Hadi Ali submitted an
application. In relation to the property, he also requests a grant of mutation;
however, the request is denied for the following reasons :-
1. The appellant could not produce the original copy of the will.
2. The property which was in question was under possession.
3. And the Title Suit which was filed by the Testatrix against the appellant was
pending in the civil court.
Following this, there were numerous appeals, and as a result of the absence of
evidence that was necessary in this case, the court ultimately declared that, in
light of the relevant facts and circumstances, it is not a suitable case for us to
exercise our discretionary power or jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Indian
Constitution.
Kinds of jurisdiction
1. Probate jurisdiction
It has the authority of an orphan’s court, surrogate court, or probate court.
It covers the creation of wills, the distribution of a deceased person’s assets,
and the oversight of child guardianship.
State of West Bengal Vs. Goutam Shantilal Shah, May 9, 1996
In this instance, the issue of whether district delegates could consider a
request for the grant of probate of a will pertaining to immovable property
under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act of 1925 emerged. However,
7|Page
in the end, it was decided that any application for the grant of probate of
the will must be decided in compliance with the law.
2. Matrimonial jurisdiction
It uses the authority of nullity suits, et thoro (means - pertaining to or
noting a divorce that forbids husband and wife to live together but does
not dissolve the marriage bond), marriage and divorce.
3. Admiralty jurisdiction
In matters involving ships, the sea, and other navigable waters, it wields
legal authority.
Gian Chand Vs. Gobind Ram (2000) Admiralty court is the forum for this
case. The jurisdiction of the admiralty court was invoked in England
against the respondent, who was accused of breaching a contract in
London.
4. Insolvency jurisdiction
It uses its authority as a Member State to initiate bankruptcy procedures
on whose territory the center of the debtor’s primary interests is located.
T.V. Swaminatha Iyer Vs. Krishnaswami Iyer and (1924) - The question in
this case is whether vakils have a right of audience in the Madras
Presidency Town court’s insolvency. T.V. Swaminatha Iyer was the
respondent, and G. Krishnaswami Iyer was the appellant. Following much
deliberation, it was determined that Vakils was not entitled to an audience
in the bankruptcy court.
EXPLANATIONS
• Rationale - Section 35 recognizes that judgments in these four specialized
jurisdictions, which often create or declare legal rights and statuses that
may be relevant in subsequent proceedings. This section ensures that such
8|Page
judgments can be admitted as evidence to prove or disprove the existence
of those rights and statuses.
• Competent Court - The term “competent court” includes foreign courts
with jurisdiction over similar matters. Indian courts will consider the foreign
court’s jurisdiction based on principles of private international law.
• Legal Character - Examples of legal characters include executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee, bankrupt, etc.
• Specific Thing - This refers to any tangible property, not a right or claim
against another person.
• Burden of Proof - The party relying on the judgment has the burden of
proving its authenticity and that it falls within the scope of Section 35.
CASES
• Manohar Lal Vs. Onkar Nath & Ors. - This case clarified that Section 41
applies to foreign judgments as well.
• Radha Bai Vs. Govind Ram Chandra & Ors. - This case held that a decree
declaring a person insolvent is relevant under Section 41 to prove their
insolvency in a subsequent suit.
• A.S. Krishnamoorthy Vs. A.S. Lakshmamma & Ors. - This case
emphasized that only final judgments are covered by Section 41, not
interlocutory orders.
Section 36 – Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders, decrees, other than
those mentioned in Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act
• Matter of public nature
• This section covers judgments, orders, or decrees not specifically
mentioned under Section 35 of BSA.
• Are not conclusive proof, it means they can be challenged or might require
additional evidence.
9|Page
While Section 35 focuses on judgments from specific jurisdictions establishing
legal character or title, Section 36 broadens the scope to other types of judgments
but with limitations.
The effect of judgment or order will be relevant, except those which are
mentioned in this section.
• 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.
Relevancy – Such judgments are relevant only if they relate to matters of public
nature relevant to the inquiry in the current proceeding.
• Public nature : Matters affecting the community at large, such as customs,
market rates, public rights, etc.
• Relevant to the inquiry : The facts established in the judgment must bear
some connection to the facts in issue in the current case.
Illustration : – X sues Y for the murder of his brother 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.
Case Law
• V. Shankarayya Vs. N.S. Pattadadevan (AIR 1995 SC 2187) : The
Supreme Court applied Section 42 of Indian Evidence Act to a judgment
relating to the validity of a temple trustee appointment, highlighting its
relevance to a subsequent dispute over temple administration.
• Narain Dutt Vs. Ram Lal (AIR 1920 Pat 308) : The Patna High Court held
that a judgment in a previous land acquisition case was relevant under
10 | P a g e
Section 42 to determine the market value of similar land in a subsequent
acquisition proceeding.
• Sheo Saran Singh Vs. Ram Narain Singh (AIR 1923 Pat 458) : The Patna
High Court clarified that a judgment under Section 42 cannot conclusively
establish a custom, but it can be considered along with other evidence to
prove its existence.
Section 37- Judgment, order etc., other than those mentioned in Section
34 to 36, when relevant
• This section is an exception.
• Judgments, orders or decrees not mentioned in Sections 34, 35, or 36 of
BSA are considered irrelevant unless the existence of them is Fact in issue
or relevant under some other provisions of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023 (BSA)
Judgment, order or decree are irrelevant other than those mentioned in section
34, 35 and 36. 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 ‘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.
Acceptability of verdicts in criminal and civil cases
The term “admissibility” refers to a judgment’s ability to be accepted or
legitimate, particularly when used as evidence in a legal proceeding. This brings
us to some admissibility of judgment in both criminal and civil cases.
In civil lawsuits, the parties may rely on the “Res Judicata” principle.
11 | P a g e
The civil court’s decision would be relevant if all requirements of sections 34 to
37 are met if the criminal and civil proceedings are related to the same cause or
reason.
According to section 337 of the BNSS, if the requirements outlined there are met,
an individual who has been found guilty of a crime cannot be reexamined for the
same offence.
Emperor Vs. Bhagwandas Tulsidas (1945)
The accused in this case was found to have killed both Dharamsey and Mr. Haji.
He claims that the case will fall under the purview of Section 42 of the Indian
Evidence Act (now 36 of BSA), which deals with matters of public policy.
However, it was decided that the public would not be concerned about such an
unusual death. Therefore, it is inappropriate to present certain facts as evidence
because they are not relevant under any Indian Evidence Act provision.
Section 38 – Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of
court, may be proved.
This section states that a prior ruling that has been established to have been the
result of fraud, collusion (illegal or covert cooperation), or incompetence of the
court is not subject to res judicata.
A lawsuit or other legal action involves a minimum of two parties.
Any party may present any relevant judgment, order, or decree under sections
34, 35, or 36.
The act only stipulates that a judgment’s value may be rendered ineffective in
the event that any of the following three conditions are met :-
1. Incompetency of the court
2. If there is fraud
12 | P a g e
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.
13 | P a g e
