| Headnote |
Foreign Judgement-How far binding—If affects properties outside jurisdiction of foreign Court—Proceedings in foreign Court—Natural justice, violation of—Proof—If "coram non judice"—Scope of enquiry—Hindu Law— Joint family property—Disposal by Will—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), S. 13. .One Ramalingam died at Bangalore leaving a will whereby he devised considerable immovable and movable properties in the States of Mysore and Madras, The executors applied for probate of the will and it was granted by the District Judge, Bangalore, Shri P. Medappa. There- upon the sons of Ramlingam instituted two suits in the District Court, Bangalore and the District Court Civil and Military Station for possession of the immovable properties in Mysore and the movable properties devised by the will and a suit in the Madras High Court for possession of movable and immovable properties in Madras devised by the will. The movable included certain shares of the India Sugars and Refineries Ltd., a company with its registered office at Bellary in the State of Madras. The suits were based on the ground that all the properties were joint family properties and Ramalingam had no power to dispose of the property by his will. The Madras suit was stayed pending the disposal of the Bangalore Suits. The District Judge, Bangalore who tried the suit after the retrocession of the Civil and Military Station Bangalore, decreed the suit holding that the property devised by the will was of the joint family of Ramalingam and his sons and the will was on that account inoperative. The executors preferred appeals to the Mysore High Court which were heard by a Bench consisting of Balakrishanaiya and Kandaswami Pillai, JJ. Balakrishanaiya J.,- delivered a judgment allowing the appeals and Pillai J, delivered a judgment dismissing the appeals. Thereupon Balakrishanajya J. referred the appeals to a Full Bench. The Full Bench consisting of P. Medappa, Acting C. J., Balakrishanaiya and. Mallappa, JJ., allowed the appeals and dismissed the suit holding that the property was, the self acquired property of Ramalingatn and he could dispose it of by his will. Thereafter, in the Madras suit the executors urged that the judgment of the Mysore High Court was binding upon the parties and the suit was barred as res-judicata. The plaintiff contended that as to the immovables in Madras the Mysore Court could not and did not adjudicate upon their claim and that in any event the Mysore judgment which was a foreign judgment was not conclusive as the proceedings in the Mysore High Court were opposed to natural justice within the meaning of s. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure because Medappa, Acting C. J., and Balakrishanaiya, J., showed bias before and during the hearing of the appeals and were incompetent to sit on the Full Bench and their judgment was coram non judice. The Trial Judge held that the judgment of Mysore High Court was coram non judice and was not conclusive under s. 13 of the Code and that all the properties movable and immovable disposed of by Ramalingam belonged to the joint family and he accordingly decreed the suit. On appeal the High Court held that it was not established that the Mysore Full Bench was coram non judice, that the properties in suit were joint family properties which Ramalingam was incompetent to dispose of by his will, that the Mysore judgment did not effect the immovable in Madras but it was conclusive with respect to the movables even outside the State of Mysore and accordingly modified the decree of the trial Court by dismissing the suit with respect to the movables which consisted mainly of shares of the India Sugars & Refineries Ltd. Held (per Das and Shah, JJ.), that the Madras High Court was right in decreeing the plantiffs suit for possession with respect to the immovable property in Madras and dismissing it with respect to the movable property. The judgment of the Mysore High Court was not conclusive between the parties in the Madras suit with respect to the immovable properties in Madras but was conclusive with respect to the shares of the Company in the State of Madras. A foreign Court has jurisdiction to deliver a judgment in rem which may be enforced or recognised in an Indian Court provided that the subject matter of the action is property, whether movable or immovable within the jurisdiction of that Court. The Mysore Courts were not competent to give a binding judgment in respect of the immovable property situate in the State of Madras nor did they in fact give any judgment with respect to immovable property outside Mysore. . But there is no general rule of private international law that a court can in no event exercise jurisdiction in relation to persons, matters or property outside its jurisdiction. The Mysore Courts were competent to give a binding judgment in respect of the shares. The claim in the Mysore suit was for the adjudication of title of the plaintiffs against the executors who: had wrongfully possessed themselves of the shares. Though-i in dispute between the company and the share-holders the status of the shares was the registered office of the Company in Bellary (outside the State of Mysore) the share certificates must be deemed to be with the executors. A decree could properly be passed by the Mysore Courts ; against the executors for the retransfer of the shares. The Mysore Courts were not incompetent to grant a decree directing; the transfer of. the shares. and such decree was binding on the parties for the Madras suits, It is not necessary for the conclusiveness of a foreign judgment that that judgment should have been delivered before the suit in which it is pleaded, is instituted. The Madras High Court could not investigate the : property’ of the procedure followed in the Mysore High Court in referring the case to the Full Bench and the judgement of the Full'Bench was not exposed to the attack . of want of competence because the case was referred after the two judges constituting the Bench, had delivered separate and’ final opinions of the points in dispute. Whether the procedure or a foreign Court which does not offend rules of natural justice is proper, is for the foreign court to decide and- not for the court in which the foreign judg: ment is pleaded as conclusive. To be conclusive a foreign judgment must be by a Court competent both by the law of the State which has constituted it and-in an international sense, and it must have directly adjudicated upon the “matter” which is pleaded as res judicata. The expression ‘‘matter” is not equivalent to subject matter :. it means the right claimed. To be conclusive the judgment of the foreign Court must directly adjudicate upon the matter. The Mysore judgment was conclusive only with respect to the matters actually decided by it. The suit as framed did not relate to succession to ‘the estate of Ramalingam, nor did: it relate to: the personal status of Remaligam and his sons. The dispute related primarily to the character of the property devised by the will and the Mysore Court held that the property devised under the will was self acquired property ; it did not purport to adjudicate on any question of persona] status of the parties to the dispute Before the It was not established that the judgment of the Mysore Full Bench was croam non judice. In view of cl. (d) of s. 13 a foreign judgment is not conclusive if the proceedings in which it was obtained are opposed to natural justice. A judgment which is the result of bias or of impartiality on the part ofa judge, will be regarded as a nullity and the trial as coram non judice. The Court will always presume, in dealing with the judgment of a foreign courts, that the procedure followed by that court was fair and proper and that it was not biased, that the court consisted of Judges who acted honestly and however wrong the decision of the Court on the facts or law appear to be, an inference of bias, dishonesty or unfairness will not normally be made from the conclusions recorded by the Court upon merits. The estate devised under the will was the estate of the joint family of Ramalingam and his sons. ‘The finding of the Madras High Court to this effect was supported by the evidence on the record. Prima facie the findings of the High Court are findings of fact, and the Supreme Court normally does not enter upon a reappraisal of the evidence, but in this case it entered upon a review of the evidence on which they were founded as the Mysore High Court had on the identical issue about the character of the property devised under the will of Ramalingam arrived at a different conclusion. Per Hidayatullah, _J.—The judgment of the Full Bench of the Mysore High Court was not coram non judice and was binding on the Madras High Court in so far as it negatived the right, of the coparcenary in the Kolar Gold field business and held it to be separate property of Ramalingam. The question whether the Full Bench of the Mysore High Court had violated principles of natural justice during the hearing of the appeal, could not be considered by the Madras High Court. as if it was sitting in an appeal over the Mysore High Court, and the refusal of the Mysore High Court to adjourn the hearing to enable the appellants to bring an outside counsel did not viclate any principle of natural justice, as they had already three other counsel briefed in the appeals. In accordance with the practice of the Mysore High Court, the appeals had been properly referred to the full Bench by the Division Bench. A foreign Court will not lightly hold that the proceedings in another court were opposed to natural justice, The rule of law about judicial conduct is as strict as it isold. No Judgecan be considered to be competent to hear acase in which is directly or indirectly interested. A proved interest in‘a Judge not only disqualifies him but renders his judgment a nullity. But ‘nothing has‘been proved in the present case to establish this interest. The objection to the jurisdiction of the Court in a foreign country on other than international considerations must be raised. in the country where the trial took place. Objections to it internationally can be raised in the Court in which the judgment is produce. But, even if the objection to the jurisdiction be raised in the court where the judgment is produced, that court will consider in action in rem, whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the defendant and also in actions in personam, whether the jurisdiction was possessed over the subject matter and the parties. In dealing with the question of foreign judgments, Indian Courts have to be guided by the law as codified in this country. Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code make a judgment conclusive as to any matter directly adjudicated between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title. There is no real difference in so far as competency of a foreign court goes between action in rem actions in personam. The subject matter of controversy in the Mysore Courts was the status of Ramalingam who was a subject and resident of Mysore State. His will made in that jurisdiction was admit- ted to probate there. His sons'and other relatives who figured as parties and those in possession of the property were in that State. It is clear that the Mysore Courts were competent internally as well as internationally to decide about the status of Ramalingam or the rights in the Kolar Gold Fields business between these parties.. The same questions were raised in the Madras suit. The question for determination was the effect of the Mysore judgment upon the suit in Madras in view of s. 13 of the Code. Section 13 of the Code contemplates both judgments in rem and judgments in personam. The matter relating to Hindu co-parcenary and the position of Ramalingam were really question of status. The Mysore Courts had directly adjudicated that Ramalingam was not carrying on the Kolar Gold Fields business as co-parcener but as his own separate business and this adjudication was binding on the parties in the suit at Madras. The decision of the Mysore High Court with respect of the status of Ramalingam vis a vis the Kolar Gold Field business must be regarded in the Madras spit as a conclusive adjudication, The Madras Court could not try the question of Ramalingam’s status de novo and that part of its decision, which went behind the adjudication of the Mysore-High Court, was without jurisdiction. On this finding the immovable properties in Madras were also the separate properties of Ramalingam which he could dispose of by will, if they were the product of the Kolar Gold Field business. The only question that could be tried at Madras was whether they were. The Mysore Courts were competent to order the share scrips to be handed over to the successful party and if necessary to order transfer of the shares and its judgment in regard to them was binding in the Madras Courts. |
