Under the Indian Evidence Act, judgments have relevance as evidence in certain circumstances. The relevancy of judgments is covered under Sections 40 to 44 of the Act. These sections pertain to the admissibility of judgments and their evidentiary value in legal proceedings.
Section 40 – Previous Judgments Relevant to Bar a Second Suit or Trial
According to this section, a judgment, decree, or order in a previous case is relevant if it has been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, and it operates as a bar to a subsequent suit or trial on the same issue between the same parties.
Section 41 – Relevancy of Judgments in Probate, etc., Jurisdictions
This section states that judgments, orders, or decrees of a competent court in probate, divorce, or admiralty proceedings are relevant for proving the existence or non-existence of facts in issue in those proceedings.
Section 42 – Relevancy and Effect of Judgments, Orders, or Decrees, Other Than Those Mentioned in Sections 40 and 41
This section provides that judgments, orders, or decrees are relevant if they relate to matters of public nature or are relevant to establish a custom or right or liability. The judgments should have been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 43 – Judgments Affecting Execution of Document, or A Right to or Interest in, Immovable Property:
This section pertains to judgments that affect the execution of a document or a right or interest in immovable property. Such judgments are relevant for proving certain facts, such as the existence of a particular document, its execution, or the date of execution.
Section 44 – Fraud or Collusion in Obtaining Judgment, or Conclusiveness of Judgment, Other Than in Collusion Cases:
This section deals with judgments that have been obtained by fraud or collusion. It provides that judgments that are obtained by fraud or collusion are not conclusive proof of the matter decided. However, judgments not obtained by fraud or collusion are generally considered conclusive as to the existence of the matter decided.
Section 40-44 Indian Evidence Act
| Section | Meaning | Scope | Case Laws |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 40 | Previous Judgments Relevant to Bar a Second Suit or Trial | Prevents relitigation on the same issue between the same parties when there’s a final judgment in a previous suit or proceeding. | R.V. Eshwara Bhat vs. State of Karnataka (2017) – Applied Section 40 to quash criminal proceedings based on similar facts previously decided by a competent court. |
| Section 41 | Relevancy of Judgments in Probate, etc., Jurisdictions | Allows the use of judgments, orders, or decrees in probate, divorce, or admiralty proceedings to prove the existence or non-existence of facts in issue in those proceedings. | N/A |
| Section 42 | Relevancy and Effect of Judgments, Orders, or Decrees, Other Than Those Mentioned in Sections 40 and 41 | Allows the use of judgments, orders, or decrees related to public matters, customs, rights, or liabilities as evidence. | N/A |
| Section 43 | Judgments Affecting Execution of Document, or A Right to or Interest in, Immovable Property | Permits the use of judgments that affect the execution of documents or rights/interests in immovable property to establish certain facts. | N/A |
| Section 44 | Fraud or Collusion in Obtaining Judgment, or Conclusiveness of Judgment, Other Than in Collusion Cases | Deals with judgments obtained by fraud or collusion, stating they are not conclusive. Genuine judgments are generally considered conclusive. | G. Anjanappa vs. Chandrasekara (1919) – Discusses the fraud in obtaining a judgment. |
Judgment in Rem & Judgment in Personam
“Judgment in rem” and “judgment in personam” are two important legal concepts used in the context of civil litigation, particularly in the field of admiralty and international law.
Judgment in Rem
- Meaning: A judgment in rem is a legal judgment that directly concerns the status or condition of a specific piece of property or a specific legal right, rather than the personal liability of a particular individual.
- Scope: This type of judgment is typically used in admiralty and maritime law cases, as well as in cases involving property disputes, probate, and other matters where the legal issue revolves around the property itself. The judgment usually determines the ownership or rights related to the property, and it is binding on the property and all parties who may claim an interest in it, regardless of whether they were personally involved in the lawsuit.
- Example: In an admiralty case involving a shipwreck, a judgment in rem might determine the ownership of the ship or the allocation of salvage rights.
Judgment in Personam
- Meaning: A judgment in personam is a legal judgment that is directed against a specific individual or entity, holding them personally liable for a particular obligation, debt, or legal duty.
- Scope: This type of judgment is commonly used in civil lawsuits, such as contract disputes, tort cases, and family law matters. It is based on the principle that a person is personally bound by the judgment, and it may involve the payment of damages, specific performance of a contract, or other personal obligations.
- Example: In a contract dispute, if one party sues the other for breach of contract and seeks damages, the judgment would be in personam, holding the party that breached the contract personally liable to pay the damages.
