Law and You >Procedural Laws > Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 > Part II > Judgments of Courts of Justice When Relevant (Ss. 34 to 38 BSA)
In the realm of legal proceedings, the role of evidence is paramount in establishing the facts of a case and ensuring a just outcome. One key category of evidence that is often debated is the admissibility of judgments made by courts of justice. While judgments are typically seen as authoritative decisions, their admissibility as evidence in subsequent cases is governed by specific rules under the law of evidence. In many legal systems, judgments rendered in previous cases may be relevant and admissible under certain conditions, especially when they help establish facts, precedents, or principles essential to the matter at hand. Sections 34 to 38 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) deal with judgments of courts when relevant.
The law of evidence recognizes that judgments made by courts of justice may hold significant probative value in certain situations. These judgments can serve as valuable evidence in civil and criminal proceedings, either as proof of a fact or as a precedent that guides the resolution of the present case. However, the law also imposes strict guidelines on when and how these judgments may be used, ensuring that their introduction does not unfairly prejudice the parties involved or complicate the pursuit of justice.
In this article, we will explore the circumstances under which judgments of courts of justice are considered relevant under the law of evidence. We will examine the types of judgments that may be admissible, the criteria for their relevance, and the limitations imposed on their use. By understanding the legal framework surrounding judgments as evidence, we can better appreciate their role in shaping legal proceedings and ensuring fairness in the justice system.
A judgment isย a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. There are two kinds of judgments: Judgments in rem and Judgments in personam.
Judgments in Rem:
A judgment in rem is one pronounced upon the status of some particular person or thing and which binds all persons in the world. Thus, a judgment which binds all men, and not only the parties to the suit in which it was passed, and their privies, and that it belongs to positive law are judgments in rem. A judgment in rem is conclusive, not only against the parties to it, but also against the entire world.
Effect of Judgements in Rem:
Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof
- that any legal character which it confers accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation;
- that any legal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the time when such judgment order or decree declares it to have accrued to that person;
- that any legal character which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declared that it had ceased or should cease; and
- that anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declares that it had been or should be his property.
In State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, AIR 1983 SC 684 case, the Supreme Court observed: โIt is well settled that a judgment in rem like judgments passed in probate, insolvency, matrimonial, or guardianship, or other similar proceedings, is admissible in all cases whether such judgments are inter partes or notโ
Examples of judgment in rem:
- Judgments of Probate: Probate jurisdiction means jurisdiction of a court under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in respect of testamentary and intestate matters. By exercising probate jurisdiction, the court can pronounce the genuineness of will of a deceased person and grant letter of probate in favour of a person who may act for the deceased in execution of his will. A judgment of a court of probate is conclusive proof and is binding on the entire world. The grant of probate is the decree of a court which no other court can set aside except for fraud or want of jurisdiction.
- Judgments of Matrimonial Matters: By virtue of this jurisdiction the court can decide the legal status of a person whether she is married or widow or divorcee. The judgment of a Matrimonial court is judgment in rem and is admissible under s. 41. A decree of nullity and divorce under Marriage Law has the same effect.
- Judgments of Admiralty: Admiralty jurisdiction is exercised by certain High Courts under the Letters Patent. An Admiralty Court decides cases arising out of war claims. The finding of a court of admiralty jurisdiction is a judgment in rem
- Judgments of Insolvency: A court having insolvency jurisdiction exercised its power under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. Now the jurisdiction is exercised under the Insolvency Code. By exercising insolvency jurisdiction the court can determine legal status of a person whether he is insolvent or he is discharged from insolvency or annulment of his insolvency. A judgment of an insolvency court is a judgment in rem and binding on all.
- Judgments on question of legitimacy, adoption and the like matter are judgments in rem
- A judgment in a suit under Section 92 CPC binds the entire world.
Admissibility of Judgments in Rem:
Ordinarily, a judgment in a previous case will not be admissible in a subsequent case because a court has to form its own opinion depending upon the facts and circumstances of that case, whether civil or criminal. In civil cases the principles of res judicata may apply in cases between same parties. However, in criminal cases, once acquitted or convicted, he cannot be tried for the same offence again.
- A judgment in rem is of conclusive proof to show that a person had such legal character; that legal character which subsisted has ceased to exist and that the judgement had conferred such legal character.
- A judgment in rem will always be admissible irrespective of whether such judgment was between the parties or not. A judgment not between the parties is inadmissible except to prove who the parties were and decree passed and properties of the subject matter of the suit.
- A judgment which is not a judgment in rem, is not admissible in evidence against those who are neither parties to it nor derive title through such parties, as proof of the facts determined therein.
- A judgment of a Foreign Court that a particular person is an heir of another, though not a judgment in rem is binding on the Indian Courts as to the ownership of his property in India.
Judgments in Personam:
A judgment in personam or inter parties is an ordinary judgment between parties in cases of contract, tort or crime. The rights and liabilities of the parties to the suit are determined in such judgments. This judgment binds only the parties or privies to the suit. It does not bind entire world. A judgment in personam in only conclusive between the parties and privies, and it operates res judicata between the same parties on the same subject- matter. All judgments other than judgment in rem, are judgments in personam or judgments inter parties.
Examples of Judgments in Personam:
- A judgment given in a dispute arisen from a contract
- A judgment holding that A is not the adopted son of B
Distinguish Between Judgments in Rem and Judgments in Personam:
| Judgments in Rem | Judgments in Personam |
| A judgment in rem is one pronounced upon the status of some particular person or thing and which binds all persons in the world. | A judgment in personam or inter parties is an ordinary judgment between parties in cases of contract, tort or crime. |
| Judgment in rem is adjudication pronounced upon the status of a person or a thing. | Judgments in Personam are all the ordinary judgments not affecting the status of any subject matter, any person or anything. |
| It is binding on all persons, whether they are parties to those proceedings or not | It is binding on the parties to the suit only |
| Judgment of a court in exercise of probate, matrimonial or insolvency jurisdiction confirming or taking away any legal character are judgments in rem | The judgments of the civil court are the judgments in Personam. |
| Example: The grant of probate is the decree of a court which no other court can set aside except for fraud or want of jurisdiction. | Example: A judgment given in a dispute arisen from a contract ย |
Section 34 BSA:
Previous Judgments Relevant to Bar a Second Suit or Trial:
The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial.
Where a dispute is already decided by a competent Court, and court has delivered a judgment, order or decree, and the original or certified copy of it is relevant fact under Section 34 BSA. ย A judgment, order or decree given by a competent court is conclusive evidence hence relevant.
The object of the provision is to avoid multiplicity of the suits and to save the precious time of the Court. In Civil Procedure Code Section 11 provides ruleย ofย Res Judicataย and in BNSS and constitution it is provided that no one shall be punished for the same offense twice, based on the maximย nemo debet bisย vexari pro una et eadem causa, i.e. rule of double jeopardy.
Ingredients of Section 34 BSA:
- There must be a dispute already decided by a competent Court;
- That Court has delivered a judgment, order or decree after conducting judicial proceedings; and
- The subject matter must be the same.
Section 34 BSA applies to a case where the court has jurisdiction to try a suit, but one-party claims that it would not as the suit has already been decided earlier.
For example, A sues B for the possession of a house, both of whom claim to be separate owners of the house. The suit is decided in favour of B, who is held to be the owner of it. After 5 years, A again files a suit against B alleging to be the owner of the house. B contends that a judgment has been given previously with regard to the same and pleads Section 11 CPC. The previous judgment will be admissible.
When the previous acquittal did not operate to bar the second trial of the accused and where both trials were separate and the incidents were viewed as distinct transactions and the offences were different thus relating to different charges, neither evidence on record nor acquittal is relevant in the second case.
A judgment in rem under this section is conclusive in a civil as well as in criminal proceeding. Both the proceedings may run simultaneously. Judgments in personam bind the parties and their representatives-in interest and not relevant under S. 35 BSA, in any subsequent proceeding.
Section 35 BSA:
Relevancy of Certain Judgments in Probate, Etc., Jurisdiction:
(1) A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court or Tribunal, 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, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant.
(2) Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof thatโ
(i) any legal character, which it confers accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation;
(ii) any legal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the time when such judgment, order or decree declares it to have accrued to that person;
(iii) any legal character which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declared that it had ceased or should cease; and
(iv) anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declares that it had been or should be his property.
Ingredients of Section 35 BSA:
- There must be a dispute already decided by a competent Court;
- The judgment must be related to the matter related to probate, matrimonial, admiralty, insolvency.
- That Court has delivered a judgment, order or decree after conducting judicial proceedings;
- The judgment must confer upon or take away from any person any legal character; or declare any person to be entitled to any such character; or to be titled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person, but absolutely; and
- Such a judgment is a conclusive proof.
A judgment in rem will always be admissible irrespective of whether such judgment was between the parties or not. A judgment not between the parties is inadmissible except to prove who the parties were and decree passed and properties of the subject matter of the suit.
Section 36 BSA:
Relevancy and Effect of Judgments, Orders or Decrees, Other Than Those Mentioned in Section 35:
Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 35, are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state.
Illustration:
A sues B for trespass 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.
Ingredients of Section 42:
- Judgment is not related to matter related to mention in Section 41 i.e., not related to probate, matrimonial, admiralty, insolvency; and
- Judgment relates to the matter of public nature, whether the dispute between the two same parties or not.
Matters of public nature include public customs, rights of preemptio9n, way, fisheries, ferry, drawing water from a well or pond and the matter concerning the public at large.
Section 37 BSA:
Judgments, etc., Other Than Those Mentioned in Sections 34, 35 and 36, When Relevant:
Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provisions of this Act.
Illustrations:
(a) A and B separately sue C for a libel which reflects upon each of them. C in each case says, that the matter alleged to be libellous is true, and the circumstances are such that it is probably true in each case, or in neither. A obtains a decree against C for damages on the ground that C failed to make out his justification. The fact is irrelevant as between B and C.
(b) 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.
(c) A has obtained a decree for the possession of land against B, C, Bโs son, murders A in consequence. The existence of the judgment is relevant, as showing motive for a crime.
(d) A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of theft. The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue.
(e) A is tried for the murder of B. The fact that B prosecuted A for libel and that A was convicted and sentenced is relevant under section 8 as showing the motive for the fact in issue.
Section 38 BSA:
Fraud or Collusion in Obtaining Judgment, or Incompetency of Court, May be Proved:
Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under section 34, 35 or 36 and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion.
Section 38 BSA enables a party otherwise bound by a previous adjudication to show that it was not final or binding because it is vitiated by fraud. Sec. 38 BSA gives an opportunity to the adverse party to raise questions that the judgment obtained under Ss. 34, 35 and 36 by the first party in the previous suit or proceeding on the grounds mentioned in sec. 38. Sec. 38 is not applicable to sec. 37.
For Example: though the genuineness of the will cannot be challenged once the probate is issued under section 41, but the judgment can be challenged that it was obtained by fraud or collusion.
The Competency on the part of court means lack of jurisdiction. Thus, if any court without jurisdiction gives judgment on any matter it is null and void. It cannot be used as evidence as relevant.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Click Here