1962 (5) TMI 25 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Mysore Courts and the extent of the conclusiveness of the judgment of the Full Bench under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Whether the estate devised under the will dated September 10, 1942, was the joint family estate of Ramalingam and his sons.
3. Allegations of bias and interest against the judges of the Mysore High Court.
4. Violation of the principles of natural justice during the hearing of the appeal by the Full Bench.
5. Conclusiveness of the Mysore judgment in respect of the properties in Madras.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Mysore Courts and the Extent of the Conclusiveness of the Judgment:
The Court examined whether the Mysore Courts were competent both internally and internationally to decide the controversy. It was established that the Mysore Courts had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties involved. The judgment of the Mysore High Court was found to be conclusive under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it was pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction and was given on the merits of the case. The Court emphasized that the judgment of a foreign court is conclusive as to any matter directly adjudicated upon between the same parties, provided it meets the conditions laid out in Section 13.

2. Joint Family Estate:
The Court reviewed the evidence to determine whether the estate devised under the will was the joint family property of Ramalingam and his sons. The High Court held that the properties and businesses were acquired by Ramalingam through his own efforts and were not part of a joint family estate. The Court found that the business and possessions were not those of a joint family but the separate properties of Ramalingam, thereby upholding the findings of the Mysore High Court.

3. Allegations of Bias and Interest Against the Judges:
The allegations against Chief Justice Medappa and Justice Balakrishniah included claims of bias, interest, and improper conduct during the hearing of the appeals. The Court examined the evidence and found that the allegations were not substantiated. It was noted that the conduct of the sons of Ramalingam was calculated to exasperate the judges, and there was no sufficient evidence to prove bias or interest that would disqualify the judges from hearing the case.

4. Violation of the Principles of Natural Justice:
The Court considered whether the principles of natural justice were violated during the hearing of the appeals by the Full Bench. It was argued that the refusal to grant adjournments and the composition of the Bench indicated a denial of justice. However, the Court found that the refusal to grant adjournments was within the discretion of the judges and did not amount to a violation of natural justice. The Court also held that the inclusion of Justice Balakrishniah on the Full Bench, despite his earlier judgment, did not violate the principles of natural justice due to the practice and circumstances of the Mysore High Court.

5. Conclusiveness of the Mysore Judgment in Respect of the Properties in Madras:
The Court examined the extent to which the Mysore judgment was conclusive regarding the properties in Madras. It was held that the Mysore judgment was conclusive in respect of the shares of the Indian Sugars and Refineries Ltd. and other movable properties. However, the judgment was not conclusive regarding the immovable properties in Madras, as the Mysore Court did not have jurisdiction over these properties. The Court affirmed that the findings of the Mysore High Court on the status of Ramalingam and the ownership of the Kolar Gold Fields business were binding and could not be re-litigated in the Madras suit.

Conclusion:
The appeals were decided based on the principles of competence and conclusiveness of foreign judgments under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court upheld the findings of the Mysore High Court regarding the status of Ramalingam and the ownership of the Kolar Gold Fields business, while allowing the Madras High Court to decide on the immovable properties in Madras. The allegations of bias and violation of natural justice were not substantiated, and the judgment of the Mysore High Court was found to be conclusive in respect of the matters directly adjudicated upon.