Relevance of Judgments — General Principle and Exceptions (ss. 34–38) — BSA (Law of Evidence) Notes

Relevance of Judgments — General Principle and Exceptions (ss. 34–38)

‘A’ gets ‘B’ convicted for stealing his cow. Later ‘A’ sues ‘C’, who had bought that very cow from ‘B’. Surely, thinks ‘A’, the conviction settles everything — a court has already declared the cow stolen. But ‘C’ was never a party to that trial; he never had his day in court over it. The law’s instinct is fairness: a judgment cannot bind a stranger who was never heard. That instinct is the whole of this topic.

The starting rule is res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet [a thing done between others ought not to harm a third party] — a judgment binds and is relevant only between the parties to it and their successors. A judgment is, to a stranger, merely one person’s opinion, delivered without hearing him, so it is generally irrelevant in a later case involving different parties. Sections 34 to 38 then carve out the exceptions.

A. Section 34 [IEA s. 40] — judgments that bar a second suit or trial

The existence of a judgment that by law prevents a court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial is a relevant fact. This is the evidentiary doorway for res judicata (a matter already decided cannot be re-litigated) in civil cases and autrefois acquit / autrefois convict [previously acquitted / previously convicted — the bar on double jeopardy] in criminal cases. The earlier judgment is relevant precisely to shut out the second proceeding.

B. Section 35 [IEA s. 41] — judgments in rem (the big exception)

A final judgment of a competent court in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction — one that confers, takes away, or declares a legal character (status), or declares a person entitled to a thing absolutely (not merely as against a specified person) — is relevant, and is conclusive proof of that status against the whole world.

These are judgments in rem [against the thing/status — binding on everyone], as opposed to judgments in personam [against the person — binding only the parties]. A grant of probate, a decree of divorce, an adjudication of insolvency, an admiralty decree on a ship — each fixes a status that everyone must respect. Memorise the four jurisdictions: Probate, Matrimonial, Admiralty, Insolvency.

C. Sections 36–37 — other judgments

s. 36 [IEA s. 42] — judgments (other than the s. 35 ones) that relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry are relevant, but not conclusive proof of what they state.
s. 37 [IEA s. 43] — all other judgments are irrelevant, unless the existence of the judgment is itself a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of the Act. This is the residual rule that answers the “cow” and “adultery” problems: a judgment in personam between different parties is simply not relevant against a stranger.

D. Section 38 [IEA s. 44] — attacking a judgment

Even a judgment that is relevant under ss. 34, 35 or 36, once proved by the opponent, may be attacked by any party by showing that it was (i) delivered by a court not competent to deliver it, (ii) obtained by fraud, or (iii) obtained by collusion. Fraud and collusion unravel everything.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the stolen cow

Facts. ‘A’ prosecutes ‘B’ for stealing his cow; ‘B’ is convicted. ‘A’ afterwards sues ‘C’, to whom ‘B’ had sold the cow before his conviction. Is the judgment against ‘B’ relevant against ‘C’?

Rule. A judgment in personam is relevant only between its parties (s. 37); it is not relevant against a stranger unless its existence is a fact in issue.

Apply. The criminal judgment against B is a judgment in personam. C was not a party to it and its existence is not a fact in issue between A and C. It is none of the ss. 34–36 kinds (not a bar, not in rem, not a public-nature matter).

Conclusion. The conviction of B is irrelevant as between A and C (this is s. 37, illustration (b)). A must prove his title to the cow against C by independent evidence.

Decoy. “A court has already held the cow was stolen, so it is settled” — wrong; that judgment binds only A and B, not the stranger C.

Section 37, BSA 2023: “Judgments or orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36, 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 Adhiniyam.”

In Simple Terms: Apart from the three special kinds (a bar to a second case, an in rem status judgment, and a public-nature judgment), earlier judgments do not count in a later case — unless the case is actually about whether that judgment exists.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Is an earlier judgment relevant?"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["s. 34 — bars a second suit/trial<br/>(res judicata / double jeopardy)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["s. 35 — IN REM: probate, matrimonial,<br/>admiralty, insolvency = conclusive,<br/>binds the WORLD"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["s. 36 — public-nature matter<br/>relevant, NOT conclusive"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> D["s. 37 — all others IRRELEVANT<br/>unless existence is a fact in issue"]:::diamond
    ROOT --> E["s. 38 — may be attacked for<br/>fraud, collusion, incompetent court"]:::diamond
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef diamond fill:#FDECEA,stroke:#B22222,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Hollington vs F. Hewthorn & Co. (1943) — the English rule that a criminal conviction is not relevant, as proof of the facts on which it rests, in a later civil suit between different parties; the judgment binds only its own parties.
K.G. Premshankar vs Inspector of Police (2002) — a finding in one proceeding is not conclusive in another between different parties; ss. 40–44 IEA (now ss. 34–38) govern when judgments are relevant, and the court must reach its own conclusion.
Surinder Kumar vs Gian Chand (1957) — a judgment in rem under s. 41 IEA (now s. 35) is conclusive of the status it declares against the whole world.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BSA (Law of Evidence) topics