1964 (2) TMI 107 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Effect of a foreign judgment under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Competence of the foreign court to adjudicate on the matter.
3. Applicability of res judicata to foreign judgments.
4. Distinction between judgments in rem and judgments in personam.
5. Determination of succession rights under Hindu Law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Effect of a Foreign Judgment Under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The appeal raises the question of whether a foreign judgment can affect a subsequent suit based on the same original cause of action between the same parties concerning different properties. The trial court held that the judgment of the Munsiff's Court at Sagar was conclusive under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and operated as res judicata. However, the High Court found that the judgment of the Sagar Court could not be conclusive for properties situated outside its jurisdiction.

2. Competence of the Foreign Court to Adjudicate on the Matter:
The appellant contended that the Sagar Court was not a court of competent jurisdiction to pronounce judgment on the plaintiff's right to the suit property under exception (a) to Section 13 of the Code. The court agreed, noting that a foreign court's judgment is only conclusive if it is from a court of competent jurisdiction and does not suffer from any infirmities mentioned in Section 13. The High Court concluded that the Sagar Court was not competent to adjudicate on rights concerning properties outside its jurisdiction.

3. Applicability of Res Judicata to Foreign Judgments:
The High Court clarified that the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code is broader than the principle of conclusiveness of foreign judgments under Section 13. The court noted that the judgment of the Sagar Court could not operate as res judicata for properties situated outside its jurisdiction. The court emphasized that each issue relating to title to immovable properties must be decided by the court within whose jurisdiction the property is situated.

4. Distinction Between Judgments in Rem and Judgments in Personam:
The court discussed the distinction between judgments in rem and judgments in personam in private international law. A judgment in rem, which affects the status of a person or property, will not attract extra-territorial recognition unless given by a court internationally competent in this respect. The court noted that the judgment of the Sagar Court was not a judgment in rem and, therefore, could not have extra-territorial effect.

5. Determination of Succession Rights Under Hindu Law:
The court highlighted that succession to immovable property is governed by lex situs (the law of the place where the property is situated). However, in India, the right to succession for Hindus is governed by Hindu Law, which is considered the law of domicile. The court noted that the trial court at Sirsi should determine the relationship of the parties to Ishwar and the right to succession based on the evidence before it and in accordance with Hindu Law.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal, reversed the judgments of the lower courts, and remanded the case back to the trial court for a decision on the merits. The trial court was instructed to determine the evidentiary value of the judgment of the Sagar Court and decide the main question at issue based on the evidence presented. Both parties were allowed to lead additional evidence as they deemed fit. The costs of the appeal were to be costs in the cause.

Final Orders:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Case remanded to the trial court for decision according to law.
3. Both parties allowed to present additional evidence.
4. Costs of the appeal to be costs in the cause.