RELEVANCY OF JUDGEMENT IN EVIDENCE LAW(1).pptx

EVIDENCE ACT
SECTION 40-44

1. RELEVANCY OF JUDGEMENT SECTION 40-44 BY ANJOOM ANVER

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 01 SECTION:40 04 SECTION 41 02 SECTION 42 05 SECTION 43 SECTION 44 03 06

3. INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPT OF JUDGEMENT The  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. For example: A civil judgement is not relevant to a criminal trial though arising out of the same fact. A judgement in a civil case for defamation is not relevant to criminal prosecution . Judgement is divided into two: 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. 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.

4. SECTION 40- PREVIOUS JUDGMENTS RELEVANT TO BAR A SECOND SUIT OR TRAIL Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the relevancy of previous judgments or orders in the course of legal proceedings. It states : " 40. Relevancy of previous judgments. – 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 .“ Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 40 defines that, the existence of any judgment, will be relevant even in a second trial. Here the rule of ‘res judicata’ applies. It simply means that if any judgement which prevents the court from giving attention to such a suit or petition then it will be a relevant fact.  The concept of res judicate is present in this section ( “Res” means “subject matter” and “ judicate ” means “already decided ”) The above-mentioned provision is similar to Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 and Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ( CrPC ) which provide for the principle of  “ auterfois convict”  or  Double jeopardy  which means that person must not be punished twice for the offence.

5. SECTION 40- PREVIOUS JUDGMENTS RELEVANT TO BAR A SECOND SUIT OR TRAIL Example: Let's say there is a civil dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land. Party A claims that they are the rightful owners, while Party B disputes this claim. During the course of the legal proceedings, Party A produces a judgment from a previous case that conclusively established their ownership of the same land . In this scenario : 1. Party A presents the previous judgment as evidence under Section 40 of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. The previous judgment is relevant to the current case because it legally prevents any court from taking cognizance of a suit challenging Party A's ownership of the land. Based on the existence of the previous judgment, the court may decide that it should not take cognizance of Party B's suit, as the ownership issue has already been conclusively settled in the earlier judgment.

6. SECTION 41- RELEVANCY OF CERTAIN JUDGMENT IN PROBATE, ETC, JURISDICTION The   Indian Evidence Act, 1872  says that a final judgment, order, decree or ruling of a court exercising probate (relating to will), matrimonial (marriage, divorce), admiralty (war claims) or insolvency jurisdiction is relevant . This section consist of two parts:  It 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. A  judgement in personam  is when a judgment is given to the parties (e.g. a tort or a contract action) which binds only the parties and is not relevant in any subsequent case.

7. SECTION 41- RELEVANCY OF CERTAIN JUDGMENT IN PROBATE, ETC, JURISDICTION Section 41 deals with judgment-in-rem under and mentions matters related to  probate, matrimonial, admiralty and insolvency. Probate Jurisdiction:  It provides for the establishment of a will and when probate is granted it establishes the legal character of that person. Matrimonial Jurisdiction:  The judgement of the matrimonial court is related to cases regarding marriage like those for divorce or nullity of marriage and the same is considered as a judgement in Rem. Admiralty Jurisdiction:  It is the jurisdiction with respect to maritime claims which vests with the respective High Courts and will extend up to the territorial waters of their respective jurisdictions. Insolvency Jurisdiction:  It is a special jurisdiction, and such jurisdiction should not be extended beyond what is strictly necessary for the purpose of administering the insolvency law.

8. SECTION 41- RELEVANCY OF CERTAIN JUDGMENT IN PROBATE, ETC, JURISDICTION Example: there is a dispute over the inheritance of a deceased person's estate, and the issue is whether a particular individual is the legitimate heir and entitled to the property. In this case, a final judgment from a probate court that conclusively determined the deceased person's will and the rightful heir would be relevant under Section 41 . For instance, if a probate court has issued a final judgment declaring that John is the legitimate heir and is entitled to inherit the entire estate of his deceased father, this judgment can be used in a subsequent legal proceeding to establish John's legal character and his entitlement to the property. The judgment would be relevant under Section 41 to prove John's legal rights as declared by the probate court . This example demonstrates how a judgment in a probate case can be used in another legal proceeding to establish a person's legal character or entitlement to specific rights or property, as allowed by Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act . Surendra Kumar v. Gyanchand (1975),  Supreme Court (SC) held that the judgement of a probate court granting probate of a will in favour of the petitioner must be presumed to have been obtained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and it is a  judgement in rem.

9. SECTION 42- RELEVANCY AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, DECREES, OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN SECTION 41  The effect of judgment or order will be relevant, except those which are mentioned in  section 42.  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 . Illustration: – X  sues Y for the murder of his brother i.e. 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 . Case law: In Umaswamy v. Appalu ,  where the trustee of the temple obtained a decree against certain landowners for recovering certain amounts due to the temple on the alleged right and it was held that in other suits against other landowners in which the trustee claimed under the same right, the previous decree is relevant as they were a matter of public nature.

10. SECTION 42- RELEVANCY AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, DECREES, OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN SECTION 41  The effect of judgment or order will be relevant, except those which are mentioned in  section 42.  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 . Illustration: – X  sues Y for the murder of his brother i.e. 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 . Case law: In Umaswamy v. Appalu ,  where the trustee of the temple obtained a decree against certain landowners for recovering certain amounts due to the temple on the alleged right and it was held that in other suits against other landowners in which the trustee claimed under the same right, the previous decree is relevant as they were a matter of public nature.

11. SECTION 43- JUDGMENT, ORDER ETC, OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN SECTION 40 TO 42, WHEN RELEVANT “Section 43 - Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in Sections 40 to 42, when relevant. - Judgments, orders or decrees other than 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 .” Section 43 essentially states that judgments, orders, or decrees other than those specifically mentioned in Sections 40, 41, and 42 of the Indian Evidence Act are generally considered irrelevant as evidence, unless the existence of such judgments, orders, or decrees is a fact in issue in the case or is relevant under some other provision of the Act. In other words, if a judgment, order, or decree is not covered by Sections 40 to 42 and is not directly related to the specific issues in the case or relevant under some other provision of the Act, it may not be admissible as evidence in the proceedings. This section clarifies the limited circumstances in which such documents are considered relevant in a legal case.

12. SECTION 43- JUDGMENT, ORDER ETC, OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN SECTION 40 TO 42, WHEN RELEVANT Example: Suppose there is a civil lawsuit between two parties, Mr. A and Mr. B, regarding the ownership of a piece of land. Mr. A claims that he is the rightful owner of the land based on a judgment from a local village council. This judgment was not issued by a court exercising probate, matrimonial, admiralty, or insolvency jurisdiction (as in Sections 40 to 42), but it was still a formal decision by the council . In this case : The judgment in question falls outside the scope of Sections 40 to 42. The judgment is not a probate, matrimonial, admiralty, or insolvency judgment. Under Section 43, such judgments, orders, or decrees that do not fall within the purview of Sections 40 to 42 are generally considered irrelevant as evidence unless they are a fact in issue or are relevant under some other provision of the Indian Evidence Act. In this example, the judgment from the local village council may not be automatically relevant unless it can be shown to be relevant under another section or is directly related to the fact in issue in the case.

13. SECTION 44- FRAUD OR COLLUSION IN OBTAINING JUDGMENT, OR INCOMPETENCY OF COURT, MAY BE PROVED In essence, Section 44 allows a party to a legal proceeding to introduce evidence to challenge a judgment, order, or decree that has been presented by the opposing party as evidence. This evidence can be used to demonstrate that the judgment, order, or decree was either : Delivered by a court that was not legally competent to render it. Obtained through fraudulent means. Obtained through collusion (an illegal agreement or conspiracy between parties ). This provision is important in ensuring that judgments and orders obtained through fraudulent or collusive means or by a court that lacks jurisdiction can be challenged and not accepted as valid evidence in subsequent legal proceedings. It provides a mechanism for addressing and rectifying irregularities in the legal process.

14. SECTION 44- FRAUD OR COLLUSION IN OBTAINING JUDGMENT, OR INCOMPETENCY OF COURT, MAY BE PROVED Example: Suppose Party A and Party B are involved in a property dispute, with each party claiming ownership of a piece of land. The dispute has gone through various legal proceedings, and a judgment was issued by a court (Court X), which Party A presents as evidence of their ownership of the land . However , Party B believes that the judgment was obtained through fraudulent means. Party B alleges that Party A colluded with the judge in Court X to manipulate the judgment in their favor. Additionally, Party B argues that Court X did not have jurisdiction over the property dispute, and the judgment should be declared null and void .

15. SECTION 44- FRAUD OR COLLUSION IN OBTAINING JUDGMENT, OR INCOMPETENCY OF COURT, MAY BE PROVED In this case: Party B can introduce evidence to show that the judgment obtained by Party A was delivered by a court (Court X) that lacked jurisdiction over the property dispute. This could be done by demonstrating that Court X did not have the legal authority to hear the case . Party B can also present evidence to support the claim that the judgment was obtained through fraudulent means, such as producing documents, witness testimonies, or other relevant evidence that suggests collusion or manipulation of the judgment . If Party B successfully presents evidence to establish either the incompetency of the court or the existence of fraud or collusion, the judgment presented by Party A may be challenged and not accepted as valid evidence in the ongoing legal proceedings, thereby affecting the outcome of the property dispute.

16. CONCLUSION Sections 40-44 of legal judgments play a pivotal role in ensuring fairness, justice, and the integrity of legal proceedings. These sections address the admissibility of evidence and provide guidelines for the presentation of evidence in court. In the course of our discussion, we've recognized the following key points: Foundation for Fairness: Judgment sections 40-44 are a cornerstone of the legal system, ensuring that evidence is presented in a just and transparent manner. They set the standards for what can be considered relevant and admissible in court. Preventing Unfair Prejudice: These sections are designed to prevent unfair prejudice that may arise from certain types of evidence. They establish a delicate balance between the probative value of evidence and the potential for it to unfairly sway the jury. Character Evidence: Section 41 limits the use of character evidence, primarily to maintain the focus on the facts and issues relevant to the case rather than character assassinations. Hearsay Evidence: Section 42 addresses the complex issue of hearsay evidence, stipulating exceptions under which such evidence may be admitted, ensuring reliability.

17. THANKS!