1) Introduction
Section 40 to Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lay down the provisions relating to judgements of Court of Justice, when relevant. Section 40 deals with the previous judgements to bar a suit or trial. Section 41 deals with the relevancy of certain judgements in probate etc. jurisdiction. Section 42 deals with relevancy and effect of judgements orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Section 41. Section 43 relates to judgements etc. Other than those. Mentioned in Sections 40 to 42, when relevant. Section 44 speaks about fraud or collusion in obtaining judgement or incompetence of Court, may be proved.
The object of the provision of this chapter is to avoid multiplicity of the suit and to save precious time of the Court. There should be end of litigation in the interest of justice S.11 of C.P.C deals with Doctrine of res Judicata which signifies that when a matter of fact has been finally and conclusively resolved by a competent court. the same matter cannot be re-litigated once again.
2) Kinds of Judgements
Judgements are classified into two types -
i) Judgement in Rem ; and
ii) Judgement in Personam
i) Judgement in Rem :
Judgements affecting the legal status of some subject matters, persons or things are called 'Judgments in rem' .e.g. Divorce Court Judgement, grant of probate or administration etc. Such judgements are conclusive evidence against all the persons whether parties to it or not.
ii) Judgement in Personam :
Judgements in personam are all the ordinary judgements not affecting the status of any subject matter, any person or any thing. In such judgements, the rights of the parties to the suit or proceedings are determined.
Under section 40 to 44, a Judgement is not relevant to prove that the plaintiff has filed a false case. ( hassan Abdullah vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1962 Guj214: 1962(2) Cr.LJ 55)
3) Distinction Between Judgement in Rem and Judgement in Personam
See... Distinction Between Judgement in Rem and Judgement in Personam
4) Relevancy of Judgment
A) Previous Judgements relevant to bar a second suit or trail (Section 40)
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 trail.
B) Relevancy of certain judgements in probate, etc., jurisdiction (Section.41)
C) Relevancy and effect of judgements, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in Section 41 (Section 42)
D) Judgements etc other than those mentioned in Sections 40 to 42, when relevant ( Section 43)
The purpose of this Section is to prohibit the judgements from being given in evidence which are neither enter parts nor a judgement in rem nor a judgement relating to matters of public nature. Section 43 provides that judgement, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Section 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant and cannot be proved unless the existence of Such judgement, order or decree is a fact in issue is relevant under some other provision of the act.
E) Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgement, or incompetency of court, may be proved (Section 44) -
The general rule is, a judgement of a competent court shall be binding on the parties operating as Res Judicata in subsequent proceedings between the same parties. Section 44 contains exception to this rule. According to Section 44, a judgement is liable to be annulled /impeached on the ground of a) of want of Jurisdiction; b) fraud ; and c) collusion. It runs as follows...
Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under Section 40,41 or 42 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.
5 ) Conclusion
The chapter of Judgement of Curt of Justice , when relevent from Section 40 to Section 44 based on Doctrine of Res Judicata and Doctrine of autre fois convict, means same person can not be convicted for the same offense twice. It is also known as doctrine of double geopardy as contemplated under article 22(ii) of the Indian Constitution. Section 41 deals with doctrine of judgement in rem, which not only binds the parties and their representatives to it, but also are binding against the whole world. Section 42 provides that judgements, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Section 40 and Section 41 are admissible if they relate to matters of public nature relevant to inquiry. Section 43 provides that judgements orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Section 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant and cannot be proved unless the existence of such judgement, order or decree is a fact in issue or is relevant under some provision of this act. Section 44 provides the procedure for the purpose of getting a judgement annulled on the ground of want of jurisdiction, fraud and collusion.
Section 40 to Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lay down the provisions relating to judgements of Court of Justice, when relevant. Section 40 deals with the previous judgements to bar a suit or trial. Section 41 deals with the relevancy of certain judgements in probate etc. jurisdiction. Section 42 deals with relevancy and effect of judgements orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Section 41. Section 43 relates to judgements etc. Other than those. Mentioned in Sections 40 to 42, when relevant. Section 44 speaks about fraud or collusion in obtaining judgement or incompetence of Court, may be proved.
The object of the provision of this chapter is to avoid multiplicity of the suit and to save precious time of the Court. There should be end of litigation in the interest of justice S.11 of C.P.C deals with Doctrine of res Judicata which signifies that when a matter of fact has been finally and conclusively resolved by a competent court. the same matter cannot be re-litigated once again.
2) Kinds of Judgements
Judgements are classified into two types -
i) Judgement in Rem ; and
ii) Judgement in Personam
i) Judgement in Rem :
Judgements affecting the legal status of some subject matters, persons or things are called 'Judgments in rem' .e.g. Divorce Court Judgement, grant of probate or administration etc. Such judgements are conclusive evidence against all the persons whether parties to it or not.
ii) Judgement in Personam :
Judgements in personam are all the ordinary judgements not affecting the status of any subject matter, any person or any thing. In such judgements, the rights of the parties to the suit or proceedings are determined.
Under section 40 to 44, a Judgement is not relevant to prove that the plaintiff has filed a false case. ( hassan Abdullah vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1962 Guj214: 1962(2) Cr.LJ 55)
3) Distinction Between Judgement in Rem and Judgement in Personam
See... Distinction Between Judgement in Rem and Judgement in Personam
4) Relevancy of Judgment
A) Previous Judgements relevant to bar a second suit or trail (Section 40)
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 trail.
Section 40 permits evidence of the previous judgement,
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 oath to take cognizance of such suit to hold such trial.
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 rule of Res Judicata and in Cr.P.C and constitution it is
provided that no one shall be punished for the same offense twice, based
on the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa, i.e. rule of double jeopardy.
B) Relevancy of certain judgements in probate, etc., jurisdiction (Section.41)
A final judgment, order or decree of a Competent Court, in
exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction,
which confers upon or to take 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 legal character,
or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant.
Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof -
i) That any legal character which it confer accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree come into operation;
ii) That
any legal character to which it declares and 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) That any legal character to which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declared that it had cased or should cease.
iv) 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.
Section 41 deals with what is known as judgement in rem,
which not only bind the parties at the representatives to it, but also
are binding as against the whole world.
For a judgement to be binding and conclusive proof under section 41 the following conditions have to be satisfied -
1) The judgement must be a final judgement.
2) The court delivering the judgement must be competent.
3)
The judgement must have been delivered by the court in the exercise of
Probate, size of Matrimonial, Admiralty or Insolvency jurisdiction.
4)
The judgement must confer on or take away from any person any legal
character or declare that any person is entitled to such legal character
or declared that any person is entitled to any specific thing
absolutely.
C) Relevancy and effect of judgements, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in Section 41 (Section 42)
According to Section 42, Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in
Section 41, are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature
relevant to the inquiry; nut such judgments, orders or decrees are not
conclusive proof of that which they state.
Illustrations
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 favor of the defendant, in a suit by A
against C or 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 ways exists.
D) Judgements etc other than those mentioned in Sections 40 to 42, when relevant ( Section 43)
Section 43 Provides,that Judgments, orders or decrees other then those mentioned in
Sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such
judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant, under some
other provision 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 libelous is true and the
circumstances are such that it is probable true in each case, or in
neither.
A obtains a decree against C for damages on the
ground that C filed The Orient Tavern make out his justification. The
fact is irrelevant as between B and C.
b) A prosecutes B for adultery with C, A’s wife.
B denies that C is A’s wife, but the court convicts B of adultery.
Afterwards, C is prosecuted for bigamy in marrying B during A’s lifetime. CC says that she never was A’s wife.
The judgment against B is irrelevant as against C.
c) A prosecuted B for stealing a cow, from him, B is convicted.
A,
afterwards, sues C for cow. Which B had sold to him before his
conviction. As between A and C, the judgment against B is irrelevant.
d) A has obtained a decree for the possession of land against A,C,B’s son murders A in consequence.
The existence of the judgment is relevant, as showing motive for a crime.
e)
A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of
theft. The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue.
f)
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.
The purpose of this Section is to prohibit the judgements from being given in evidence which are neither enter parts nor a judgement in rem nor a judgement relating to matters of public nature. Section 43 provides that judgement, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Section 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant and cannot be proved unless the existence of Such judgement, order or decree is a fact in issue is relevant under some other provision of the act.
E) Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgement, or incompetency of court, may be proved (Section 44) -
The general rule is, a judgement of a competent court shall be binding on the parties operating as Res Judicata in subsequent proceedings between the same parties. Section 44 contains exception to this rule. According to Section 44, a judgement is liable to be annulled /impeached on the ground of a) of want of Jurisdiction; b) fraud ; and c) collusion. It runs as follows...
Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under Section 40,41 or 42 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.
5 ) Conclusion
The chapter of Judgement of Curt of Justice , when relevent from Section 40 to Section 44 based on Doctrine of Res Judicata and Doctrine of autre fois convict, means same person can not be convicted for the same offense twice. It is also known as doctrine of double geopardy as contemplated under article 22(ii) of the Indian Constitution. Section 41 deals with doctrine of judgement in rem, which not only binds the parties and their representatives to it, but also are binding against the whole world. Section 42 provides that judgements, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Section 40 and Section 41 are admissible if they relate to matters of public nature relevant to inquiry. Section 43 provides that judgements orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Section 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant and cannot be proved unless the existence of such judgement, order or decree is a fact in issue or is relevant under some provision of this act. Section 44 provides the procedure for the purpose of getting a judgement annulled on the ground of want of jurisdiction, fraud and collusion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment