“Law Master’s Publication”

(Relevance of Judgments)

Prof. S. D. Bhosale

(..9..)

Relevancy of Judgments

(Ss. 40 to 44)

QUESTION BANK

Q. 1) Explain in detail the provisions relating to the relevancy of judgments.

SHORT NOTES

Q. 1) Relevancy of previous judgments.

SYNOPSIS

General Rule: -

II.

Exceptions: -

1. Res judicata, autrefois is convict, autrefois acquit (S.40): -

Res Judicata: -

Autrefois convict autrefois acquit: -

2. Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction (S.41): -

3. Relevancy of Judgments, orders, or decrees, other than those mentioned

in S.41, when relevant (S.42): -

“Law Master’s Publication”

(Relevance of Judgments)

Prof. S. D. Bhosale

III.

Fraud or Collusion in obtaining judgment, etc. (S.44): -

General Rule: -

The general principle of Law is that judgments, whether previous or subsequent,

are not relevant in any case or proceeding.

It provides that judgments, orders, or decrees are not relevant unless –

mentioned in S.40, 41, and 42.

ii)

iii)

is a fact in issue, or

is relevant under some other provision of the Evidence Act.

Illustrations

A sues B for trespassing on his land. B alleges the existence of a public right

of way over the land, which A denies.

The existence of a decree in favour of the defendant in a suit by ‘A’ against

C for a trespass on the same land in which C alleged the existence of the same right

of way is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of way exists.

Thus, Ss. 40, 41, and 42 lay down an exception to the general principle

provided under S.43.

II.

Exceptions: -

Res Judicata, autrefois convict, autrefois acquit (S.40): -

i) The existence of any judgment, order, or decree.

ii) Which by Law prevents any Court from taking cognizance of any suit (or

holding a trial).

iii) Is a relevant fact,

iv) When the question is whether such a Court ought to take cognizance of such

a suit or to hold such a trial.

In other words, S.40 provides that an issue that is decided by the competent

Court may not be tried again between the parties, and the previous judgment is

relevant in the subsequent trial.

Res-Judicata: -

S.40 incorporates the principle known as Res-Judicata in Civil Procedure

Code S.11 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that where a cause of action is

agitated before the Court of Law between certain parties and the case was decided,

then no new action could be brought on the same cause of action between the same

parties. The earlier judgment acts as a complete bar if the plaintiff troubles the

defendant again with the same cause of action. It means subsequent suit on the

same cause of action is prohibited. Thus, the earlier judgment will be relevant

because it will prevent the Court from taking cognizance of the case. The main

“Law Master’s Publication”

(Relevance of Judgments)

Prof. S. D. Bhosale

object of the doctrine of res judicata is to prevent the multiplicity of proceedings

and to make the dispute final.

Autrefois convict autrefois acquit: -

Similarly, in criminal cases, S.300 of the Criminal Procedure Code bars the

second trial of a person if once tried and convicted. This is known as the principle

of the Indian Constitution ‘autrefois convict’ and ‘autrefois acquit’. However,

Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution embodies only the principle of ‘autrefois

acquit’.

The judgment of a Civil Court is not admissible in a criminal prosecution to

prove the innocence of the accused and vice-versa. The judgment of a Criminal

Court does not operate as a Res-Judicata to prevent a Civil Court from determining

whether the person did or did not commit an offence.

Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction (S.41): -

This section deals with what is called judgments in rem, i.e. the judgments

which bind not only the parties and their representatives but the whole world.

According to this section, a final judgment, order, or decree of the competent

Court in the exercise of the 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, not as against some specified persons but absolutely, is

relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such

thing, is relevant.

It further provides that such judgment, order, or decree shall be conclusive

proof of accrual, entitlement, and taking away of legal character or property.

A judgment in rem under this section shall be conclusive in civil as well as

criminal proceedings.

Relevancy of Judgments, orders, or decrees, other than those mentioned

in S.41, when relevant (S.42): -

Judgments, orders, or decrees other than those mentioned in S.41 are

relevant if they relate to the matter of public nature relevant to the inquiry. Still,

such judgments, orders, or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they

state.

Illustrations

A sues B for trespassing on his land. B alleges the existence of a public right

of way over the land, which A denies.

The existence of a decree in favour of the defendant in a suit by A against C

“Law Master’s Publication”

(Relevance of Judgments)

Prof. S. D. Bhosale

for a trespass on the same land, in which C alleged the existence of the same right

of way, is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of way exists.

III. Fraud or Collusion in obtaining judgment, etc. (S.44): -

This section overrides principles laid down in S.40, 41 and 42. It lays down

that if the judgment relied upon was delivered by an incompetent Court or was

obtained by fraud or collusion, it cannot be used as Res-Judicata or as autrefois

acquit or autrefois convict.

*****