Relevance of judgments of courts (sections 34 to 38)
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam · Unit II · Topic 9 of 26 · 5 min read
On this page
Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.
Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.
1. The general principle
A judgment is the opinion of a court on the evidence before it. For a third person it is no more than that: he was not heard, could not cross-examine, and should not be bound. So a judgment is generally binding only between the parties and their privies (a judgment in personam), and is irrelevant as evidence of the facts it found when the question arises in a proceeding with strangers. The maxim is res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet, a transaction between others should not harm a third person.
The Adhiniyam builds four exceptions and a safeguard on that principle.
2. Section 34: judgments that bar a second suit or trial
The existence of a judgment, order or decree which by law prevents a Court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial is relevant when the question is whether the Court ought to do so. This is the evidentiary side of res judicata (section 11 CPC) and of double jeopardy (Article 20(2) of the Constitution and section 337 BNSS, old s.300 CrPC). The earlier judgment is proved to show the bar; its reasoning is not evidence of the facts.
3. Section 35: judgments in rem
A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court or Tribunal in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers on or takes away from any person a legal character, or declares a person entitled to such a character or to a specific thing absolutely (not merely as against a specified person), is relevant when that legal character or title is relevant.
Section 35(2) makes such a judgment conclusive proof that the legal character accrued, or ceased, at the time the judgment says, and that the thing declared to be a person's property was his from that time. A probate establishes the will against the world; a decree of divorce ends the marriage for everyone; an adjudication of insolvency fixes status. These are judgments in rem.
4. Section 36: judgments on matters of a public nature
Judgments other than those in section 35 are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry, but they are not conclusive. The illustration: A sues B for trespass; B claims a public right of way. A decree in an earlier suit by A against C, in which C set up the same right of way, is relevant but not conclusive. Public rights of way, customs of a district, rights of fishery and the like are matters of a public nature.
5. Section 37: other judgments
All other judgments are irrelevant, unless the existence of the judgment is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision. The illustrations show both halves:
- (a) A and B separately sue C for the same libel. A's decree against C is irrelevant between B and C.
- (b) B is convicted of stealing A's cow. In A's later suit against C, who bought the cow from B, the conviction is irrelevant.
- (c) C murders A because A obtained a decree against C's father. The decree is relevant to show motive (section 6).
- (d) A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted. The previous conviction is a fact in issue.
Civil and criminal judgments. A civil judgment is not binding in a criminal case on the same facts, nor the other way round, because the parties, the standard of proof and the purpose differ. K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police, 2002 INSC 381, (2002) 8 SCC 87, holds that the relevance of an earlier judgment is governed by sections 40 to 43 of the old Act (now 34 to 37); if a judgment is relevant, its effect is for the Court to decide on the facts of each case. The possibility of conflicting decisions in civil and criminal courts is not a reason to treat one as binding on the other.
6. Section 38: fraud, collusion and want of competence
Any party may show that a judgment relevant under sections 34, 35 or 36 and proved by the adverse party was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion. Even a judgment in rem, conclusive under section 35(2), falls if this is shown. Fraud vitiates everything: a decree of divorce obtained by suppressing service on the wife, or a probate obtained by collusion with a forged will, can be attacked collaterally.
7. Problem
A obtains a decree of nullity of his marriage with B from a Family Court. Later, B's son C claims a share in A's property as A's legitimate child. In C's suit, A produces the nullity decree. C says the decree was obtained by A by suppressing the summons to B. What is the effect of the decree?
Conclusion. The decree was passed in matrimonial jurisdiction and takes away a legal character, so under section 35 it is relevant and conclusive proof of the nullity against everyone, including C. But section 38 allows C to show it was obtained by fraud. If C proves the suppression of summons, the decree loses its effect in this suit. Separately, C's legitimacy may be protected by section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which preserves the legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages, so the decree may not defeat him even if it stands.
How this is examined
As a ten-mark essay on when judgments are relevant, or as a short note on "Relevant judgment" (Feb 2025) or "Judgments in rem". Begin with the general rule and its reason, then sections 34 to 37 in order with one illustration each, then section 38, and close with the civil/criminal point from K.G. Premshanker.
Now try the real questions: Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam past question papers.