SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1954 Supreme(Bom) 152

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
CHAGLA, DIXIT, JJ.
Jerbanoo Rustomji Garda
Versus
Pootlamai Manecksha Mehta
First Appeal No.325 of 1954, with L.P.A. No.38 of 1954 and C.A. No.1626 of 1954,from order of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surat, in Special Suit No.19 of 1952.
Decided On : 15-12-1954

Advocates:
H.R. Mehervaid, for Appellant; H.M. Seervai with J.N. Dastur and S.B. Vakil, for Opponents Nos. 1 and 2.

A civil court's decision on the proof of a will is not res judicata in probate proceedings.

Headnote:

PROBATE - Res Judicata - Civil Court's decision on proof of will not res judicata in probate proceedings - Probate Court's judgment operates as judgment in rem and binds the world - S. 41, Evidence Act.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, who was a legatee under a will, filed a suit in a civil court challenging the validity of the will and a codicil. The trial court upheld the will and the codicil. The appellant filed an appeal against the trial court's decision.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the appeal was not competent as it was premature. The court held that a civil court's decision on the proof of a will is not res judicata in probate proceedings. The court also held that the Probate Court's judgment operates as a judgment in rem and binds the world.

Issues: Whether a civil court's decision on the proof of a will is res judicata in probate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a civil court's decision on the proof of a will is not res judicata in probate proceedings because: * The Probate Court is a Court of conscience and it does not decide rights between parties but it has to deliver a judgment which would become a judgment in rem and this judgment will bind not only the parties before it but the whole world. * A civil Court dealing with the same question, deciding the same issue, cannot pass a judgment which would bind the world and would constitute a judgment in rem.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as being premature.

Judgement

CHAGLA, C.J.:- (His Lordship after narrating the facts of the case and matters not material for the purpose of reporting proceeded). But it is not sufficient to dispose of this matter on this ground because there is another important aspect of the matter which has been agitated at the bar and to which in our opinion it is necessary to make a reference.

Even if the appeal was competent, in our opinion it would have been futile for this Court to hear this appeal and go into the merits of the matter when probate proceedings have been launched and are actually pending before the Probate Court. Mr. Mehervaid says that we should decide the merits of the appeal because the decision given by the learned Judge on the various issues raised before him would become res judicata as between his client and the respondents in the probate proceedings.

In our opinion, it is clear that a decision as to the proof of the will given by any civil Court can under no circumstance operate as res judicata in probate proceedings taken out in the Probate Court. In a civil suit the Court is only concerned with deciding the rights between the parties. In a Probate Court the position is entirely different.

The Probate Court is a Court of conscience and it does not decide rights between parties but it has to deliver a judgment which would become a judgment in rem and this judgment will bind not only the parties before it but the whole world. Therefore, the approach of a Probate Court to the question before it is different from the approach of a civil Court adjudicating upon the rights between the parties, and this position is made clear by the provisions of S.41, Evidence Act.

It is only a final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant, and such judgment, order or decree has been made conclusive proof with regard to the legal character which it declares.

Therefore, a judgment in rem, which is the judgment with which S.41 deals, is a judgment passed by a Court as the exclusive Court dealing with probate matters. A civil Court dealing with the same question, deciding the same issue, cannot pass a judgment which would bind the world and would constitute a judgment in rem. Therefore, even though the civil Court here has decided a question as to the proof of the will and the codicil and although it has held that the will and the codicil have been proved, even so its judgment will have no binding effect as a judgment in rem. From this it must follow that this decision cannot operate as res judicata and cannot bind the Probate Court. The Probate Court must apply its own mind and must satisfy its own conscience that the will or the codicil put forward as the last will or codicil of the deceased is his last will and codicil. It must be satisfied as to the execution of the document, it must be satisfied as to the testamentary capacity of the deceased, and that satisfaction cannot be influenced or affected by any decision given by any civil Court although the issue raised was identical.

Therefore, any apprehension on the part of Mr. Mehervaid that by our refusing to hear this appeal he will be confronted in the Probate Court with the decision given by the learned Judge is entirely imaginary. We wish to make it clear - and Mr. Seervai does not contest the position - that in the probate proceedings which are pending the question will have to be agitated without any reference to the decision given by the learned Judge in this suit.

2. Perhaps a reference might be made to a decision which was referred to by Mr. Seervai and that is the decisio











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top