# SUPl{EMl!:' COURT REPOR'r8 !1963] R. VISWANATHAN v. RUKN-UL-M.ULK SYED ABDUL WAJID . (S. K·. DAS, N. IIIDAYATULLAH and

- **Citation:** [1963] 3 S.C.R. 22
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supl-eml-court-repor-r8-1963-r-viswanathan-v-rukn-ul-m-ulk-syed-abdul-wajid-s-k-2595
- **Pages:** 162

## Headnote

1962
May 4.
22
SUPl{EMl!:' COURT REPOR'r8 !1963]
R. VISWANATHAN
v.
RUKN-UL-M.ULK SYED ABDUL WAJID
. (S. K·. DAS, N. IIIDAYATULLAH and
J. c. SHAH, JJ.)
Foreign
Juag~nt-How far
binding-If
affects
properties outsiae jurisdiction of foreign Court-Proceedings
in foreign Court-Natural justice,
violation
of-Proof-If
"coram
non
judice"-Scope
of enquiry-!Jindu LawJoint family
property-Disposal ·by
Will-Corle 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. MedapJ1i1.
Thereupon the sons of Ramlingam instituted two stli"ts 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 arid 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 an<l Milit_ary 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 lo the Mysore
High Court which were heard by a Bench con•isting of
Balakrisbanaiya and Kandaswami Pillai, .JJ. Balakrishanaiya J., ·
delivered a judgment allowing the appeals and Pillai J.,
delivered a judgment dismis.c..ing the
appeals. Thereupon
Balakrfahanalya J. referred the appeals to a Full Bench.
The Full Bench consisting of P. Medappa, Acting C. J.,
Balakrishanaiya aμd. Mallappa, JJ., allowed the appeals and
dismissed the suit holding that the property was. the self
ae<Juired proper.ty of Ramalinpatn and he cpuld dispese it
...
•
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COUR1' REPOR'.tS
23
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
juaicata. The plaintiff contended that as to the immovables
in Madras the Mysore Court could not and did not adjqdicate
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. ]., 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 juaice. 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
juaice, 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 ihe
fodia Sugars & Refineries Ltd.
Held (per Das and Shah, JJ.), that the Madras High
Court was right in decreeing the plantiffs

## Text

_Characters 0–39,790 of 315,812. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39790 for what follows._

1962
May 4.
22
SUPl{EMl!:' COURT REPOR'r8 !1963]
R. VISWANATHAN
v.
RUKN-UL-M.ULK SYED ABDUL WAJID
. (S. K·. DAS, N. IIIDAYATULLAH and
J. c. SHAH, JJ.)
Foreign
Juag~nt-How far
binding-If
affects
properties outsiae jurisdiction of foreign Court-Proceedings
in foreign Court-Natural justice,
violation
of-Proof-If
"coram
non
judice"-Scope
of enquiry-!Jindu LawJoint family
property-Disposal ·by
Will-Corle 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. MedapJ1i1.
Thereupon the sons of Ramlingam instituted two stli"ts 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 arid 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 an<l Milit_ary 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 lo the Mysore
High Court which were heard by a Bench con•isting of
Balakrisbanaiya and Kandaswami Pillai, .JJ. Balakrishanaiya J., ·
delivered a judgment allowing the appeals and Pillai J.,
delivered a judgment dismis.c..ing the
appeals. Thereupon
Balakrfahanalya J. referred the appeals to a Full Bench.
The Full Bench consisting of P. Medappa, Acting C. J.,
Balakrishanaiya aμd. Mallappa, JJ., allowed the appeals and
dismissed the suit holding that the property was. the self
ae<Juired proper.ty of Ramalinpatn and he cpuld dispese it
...
•
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COUR1' REPOR'.tS
23
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
juaicata. The plaintiff contended that as to the immovables
in Madras the Mysore Court could not and did not adjqdicate
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. ]., 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 juaice. 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
juaice, 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 ihe
fodia 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
dhmissing 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 judgmer.t 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 grne1al 1t::e of p1i\ate international law
that a court can in no eHnt c:xercise jurisdiction in rclatiop
1962
R. Viswanath•n
v.
Rukn·ut·mulk 8-r•d
Abdul Wajid
tll/J2
R. Vtsliw:inathan
.
\P,
.
Rukn-ul;rnul~ Sy,a
Aii'dn(W'G,;itl
.
24
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] ..
to persons, matters or property outside its jurisdiction.
The
·Mysore Courts Were competent to g.ive a binding judgment
in respect of the shares.
The claim in the Mysoie suit was
for the adjudication of title of the plaintiffs against the exe·
cutor~ who had wrongfully po,.essed themselves of the shares.
Thougldn dispute between the company and the share-holders
the situs 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
bindfog on the parties for the Madras suits.
It is not necessary for the conclusiveness of a foreign
judgment that that-· judgmen.t should have .been delivered
before the suit in which it is pleaded, is instituted.
The Madras High Court could not investig,.te the
property"of the protetlure followed in the Mysore High
Court in referring· the case to the Full Bench and the
judgment· af the Full' Bench was not exposed to the attack
of want of competence Oecause the case was referred after
the two judges constituting the Bench, had delivered separate and" final opini<liis of the· points in dispute.
Whether
the procetlure 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 intcrn.ational sense, and it must have
directly adjudicated upon the· "matter" which is pleaded as
resjudicata.. The exprCs~ion "matter" is not equivalent to
subject roatter :. it means the right claimed. To be conclusive the judgm•nt of the foreign Court must directly adjudicate upPrt 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 R'anialingam, nor did· it: relate to· the personal status
of R•arnaligam•and his sons. The dispute r1elated primarily to
the character of the property devised by the will and the
Mysore Court htld that the property devised under the will
was self acquired property ; it did not pnrport to adjudicate
on any question of persona) status 1>f the parties to the dispute
f.i!'fore if!
·
·
J·I
•
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT RERORTS
25
It was not esta 9lished 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 of a 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 reapp·
raisal of the evidence, but in this ca:ie it entered upon
a review of the evidence on which they were founded
as the Mysore High Court bad 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 appe11l, 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 violate
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 refened to 1he full Bench by the Division
Bench.
A foreign Court . will not lightly hold that the
proceedin~s in apotJier cpurt were oppose~ tp !latural justi~~
1962
R. Vishwanatluin
y,
Rukn-ul·mulk Syed
Abdul Wajid
I96S
B. Viswa1.athan
v.
i;.ukn-ul-mulk Syed
J,bdul WaJid
26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
The rule of law about judicial
conduct is as strict
as it is old. No Judge can be consic!ered to be competent
to hear a case in which is directly or indirectly interested.
A proved interest in' a Judge nof only disqualifies
him
hut 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 mtist be raised- in the country where the trjal 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 jurisdicti1n 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 compt":tency of
a foreign court goes between action in rem actions t"n personam.
The subject matter of controversy in the Mysore Courts was
the status of Ramalingam who was a subject and resident of
Mysore Stale.
His will made in that jurisdiction was admitted to probate there.
His sons· and other relatives who figured
as parties and those iii. pos~ession of the ·property were in that
State. It is clear that the Mysore Courts were competent
internally a.s 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 juolgments 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
cafrying on the Kolar Gold Fields business as co-parcener but
as his own separate business and this adjudication was bind·
ing on the parties in the suit at Madras. The decision of the
Mysore High Court with respect of the 'tatus of Ramalingam
via a _vis the Kolar' _Gold Field business must be regarded in
))le Madr11s sμit l's i'
~on~liisive
~djm;licatioq.
T)l~ M'l\l~as
•
-
..
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
27
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 jurisdicti~n. On this finding the immovable properties in Madras
were also the separate properties of Ramalingam which he
could dispose of by will, if thoy 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 jucigment in regard. to them was binding in the Madras
Courts.
•
•
C1VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
Nos. 277 to 283 of 1958.
Appeals by certificate
from the judgment
and decrees dated December 15, and October 20,
1954, of the Madras High Court in Original Side
Appeals Nos. 127, 153, 156 and 158 of 1953. '
S. T. Desai and B. R. L-. Iyengar, for the appellauts in 0. As. Nos. 277, 279, 281 and 282/58 and
respondents Nos. I to 3 in C. A. No. 278/58.
M. 0. Set,alvad, Attorney-General of India, M.K.
Nambiar, E. V. Mathew, J.B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. J.,. Vohra, for the appellants in C. As. Nos. 278, 280 and 283/58 and respondents in C. A. Nos. 277, 279, 281 and 282/58.
Ratna Rao and K. R. Ohoudhry, for the respondent No. 6 in C. A. No. 278/58.
B. R. L. Iyengar, for respondents in C. A. No.
\
280/58 and respondent No. 1 in 0. A. No. 283/58.
S. Venkataicrishnan, for respondent No. 2 in
C. A. No. 283/58.
1952. May 4. 1he Jutlgment of Das and·Shah,
JJ. was deliverecl. by Shah, J., Hidayatullah, J. delivered a separate judgment.
SH.AH, J.-Ramalingam Mudaliar-a resident
of Bangalore (in t)le former India.n ~tate of
1962
R. Vishwanathan
v.
Rukn-ul:mulk Syed
Abdul Wojid
ShahJ.
1962
B. Vi8Wanathan
v.
RUl<n·ul·mulk· Syed
.db,dul W ojid
Shah J,
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
Mysore)-started ·life as a building ·contractor.
He prospered in the business and acquired .an
extensive estate which included many houses in
\
the Civil and Military station at Bangalore, in '"-
Bangalore city and also in the towns of Madras,
Hyderabad and Bellary. He
dealt in timber,
established cinematograph
theatres, obtained a
motor-car selling Agency .and made investments _
in plantations and coffee estates. He set up a
factory for manufacturing tilrs, and later floated a
sugar company.
·The Indian Sugars & Refineries
Ltd., of which he became the Managing Agent
and purchased a large block of shares. For some
years before his death Ramalingam had taken to
excessive drinking, and was subject to frequent
coronary attacks. He became peevish and easily
excitable and his
relations with his wife and
children
were strained. Hamalingam felt great
disappointment in his eldest son Vishwanatha who
borrowed loans from money-lenders at exorbitant
rates of interest, attempted to evade payment of
customs
duty, failsified accounts and otherwise
exhibited "utter lack of business of capacity."
Ramalingam had developed a violent antipathy
towards a sadhu named 1{11maling swami, but his
wife Gajambal and his children persisted in attend· \
ing upon the sadhu and visited him frequently.
This led to frequent quarrels between Ramalingam
and his wife aud children.
Ramalingam stopped
the allowance for household expenses, and cancelled
the power which he had given to his son Vishwa-
,nath to. operate on the joint Bank account. Shortly
thereafter, he left the family house. On June 2,
1942, his wife Gajam.bal presented a petition before
the District Judge, Civil Station Banglore, for an
order against l\amalingam for inquisition under
the Indian Lunacy Act.
On that application
evidence was directed to be recorded ·and the
District Judge called for . a medical report as to I
· t}:l.e pieptal con~ition of ltamalingaμi,
·
·
-
I
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
29
In the meanwhile, Ramalingam executed his
will dated September 10, 1942; By thi1 will he
made no provision for hii:i eldest son Vishwanath,
to each of other two sons and to Thygaraja, son
of Vishwanath he gave immovable property valued
at R's. 55,000/-and shares of the value ofH.s. 20,000/-
in the Indian Sugars & Refineries Ltd. To his wife
Gajambal he gave life interest in three houses
then under construction with remainder in favour of
Thygaraja, son of Vishwanath, and till the construction was
completed a monthly allo.wance of
Rs. 150/-. To five out of his nine daughters he gave
c;iash and immovable property approximately of the
value of Rs. 25,000/- each and to three others cash
amounts varying between Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 7,500/
aind excluded Bhagirathi, his daughter, altogether
from the benefit under the will. He also made
provision for the marriage expenses for his unmarried daughters and provided for payment of
Rs. 5,000/- to Mukti, daughter of Bhagirathi. Out
of
the
remaining
estate,
he directed that
Rs. 50,000/-· be spent in erecting a Gynaecological
ward in the Vani Vilas Hospital, Bangalore, and
stop tae balance of the estate be invested in a
fund, the income whereof be applied ''for· encouragement and development of industries, education or
medical research, diffusion . of medtcal knowledge,
including work in nutrition . and dietry by the
grant of scholarship etc." The executors of the
will were A.
Wa.Jld (retired Revenue Commissioner
of the Mysore State), Narayanaswamy Mudaliar and
S. L. Mannaji Rao. Ramalingam died on December
18 1942, leaving him surviving three sons-Vishwanath,
Swaminath
and Amarnath-his widow
Gaja.mbal and nine daughters. The executors applied
to the District Court, Civil & Military Station,
B~ngalore, for probate of the will dated September 10, 1942. The widow and children of Kama.-
lingam entered caveat and the application was
19614
R. VishW<ltl&lhan
y,
Rulen-ul-mulk, ll.11tl
-'.bilul Wq,jU
SMeh J.
•
1968
R. Vtshwanathan
v.
RuA:n-ul-mulk Byed
Abdul Wojid
Shah J.
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (I963j
registered as Original Sult No. 2 of 1943. Mr. P.
Medappa, who was then the District Judge dis·
missed the caveat and by his order dated Nov. 27
1943, granted probate of the will.
An appeal
against the order to the Court of the Resident in
Mysore, was dismissed on July 5, 1944.
Leave to
appeal against that order to .the Judicial Com·
mittee of the Privy Council was grant_ed and a
petition of appeal was lodged.
~ut by order
dated December 12, 1949, the Judicial Committee
declined to consider the appeal on the merits, for,
in the view of the Board, since the Civil & Military
Station of Bangalore was before the bearing of the
appeal retroceded to H. H. the Maharaja of Mysore
and was within the jurisdiction of his State at the
date of the hearing of the appeal. His Majesty-inCouncil could not effectively exercise jurisdiction
which was expressly surrendered and renounced.
'I'he order passed by the District· Court granting
probate accordingly became final and the· validity
of the will in so far as it dealt with property in
the Civil & Military Station, Bangalore, is not liable
to be challenged on the ground of want of due execution. Applications f9r probate of the wil,l limited
to property within the jurisdiction of the District
Court, Bangalore and the Madras High Court were
also filed and orders granting probate subject to the
result of the proceedings befor6 the Privy Council
were made.
During the pendency of the probate ;toceed·
ings, the sons of Ramalingam-who will hereinafter
be collectively referred to as the plaintiffs-instituted three actions against the executors and other
persons for establishing their title to and for posses·
sion of the estate disposed of by the will of Ramalingam.
These actions were :
'
.
(I) Suit No. 56 of 1942/43 of the fil~ of
\the District Court, Bangalore for possession of
'enmovable properties in Bangalore and the
-
•
• J
-
•
a S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
31
business carried on in the name of Rama·
lingam and also movables such as shares
together with the profits and income accrued
therefrom since December 18, 1942.
(2)
Suit No. 60 of 194! in the District
Court, Bangalore Civil & Military Station for a.
decree for possession against the executors of
immovable property within the territorial
jurisdictlon of that Court, and
(3)
Suit No. 214 of 1944 in Madras High
Court on its original side for a decree for
possession of immovable properties· in the
town of Madras and also for a decree for a
possession of "certain business" and movables
in Madras including the shares of the India
Sugars Refineries Ltd.
After the retrocession of the Military Station
Bangalore in 1947 to the Mysore State, Suit No. 56
of 1942/43 was renumbered 61A of 1947 and was
consolidated for a trial with Suit No. 60 of 1944.
Hearing of Suit No. 214 of 1944 on the Original
side of the Madras High Court was ordered to be
stayed pending the hearing and disposal of the
Mysore suits. In the three .suits the plaintiffs
claimed possession of the property devised under the
will of Ramalinga.m dated September IO, 1942, on
the plea that the property belonged to the joint·
family of the plaintiffs and the testator, and the
executors acquired under the will no title thereto
because the will was inoperative. The suits were
resiated by the executors principally on the ground
that Ramalinga.m was competent to dispose of the
estate by his will, for it was his self-acquisition. In
the suit in the District Court at Bangalore they also
contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to
grant relief in respect of any property moveable or
immovable outside the Mysore State. This plea was
raised because in the plaint as originally filed tho
1962
R, V ishwanalh.:•
v.
Rnkn-ul-mulk .Sy, ,
Abil<I Wajid
Sha'• J.
t96B
11. 1"1'wanalhan
••
Ru!uz-ul-mulk Syed
Abclul Wa.jid
Shah 'J.
. !l2
SUPREME cOURT REPoRTS [196:!]
plaintiffs had claimed a decree for possession of. the
immovable ·property in the Province of Madras and
also on order for re transfer of the shares which were
originally held by Ramalingam in the India Sugars
& Refineries Ltd., and which were since .the death of
Ramalingam tr!J,hsferred to the names of the executors. By an amendment of the schedule to the .
plaint, claim for
possession
of
immovables
situate within the jurisdiction of the Madras
High Court but not the relief relating to the
shares was deleted.
The plea .that the claim for
possession of moveables outside the State of Mysore
was not maintainable was .apparently not persisted
in b<ifore the District Court. The District Judge,
Bangalore,.held that the property devimed by the
will dated September 10, 1942, was of the jointfamily of Ramalingam and his sons and the will
was on that account inoperative. He accordingly
decreed the suit for possession of. the properties set
out in the schedules and within his jurisdiction, and .
directed that a,preliminary decree be drawn up for
account of the management of the properties since
the death of Ramalingam by the executors.
Appeals preferre~by the executors against the
decrells of the District Judge in the two suits to the
·nigh
Court of Mysore were heard by Param-
~
shivayya, C.J., and Balakrishanaiya, J. After the
appeals were heard for some time, the hearing was
. adjourned for six weeks to enable the parties to
negotiate a compromise. · The plaintiffs say that .it
,r
was agreed between them and the executors that the
widow and the children ·of Ramalingam should take
3/5th of the estate covered by the will of Ramalingam executed on.Septembei; ll', 1942, and that
the remaining 2/5th should,go to charity mentioned
in. the will and that in the event of the sons and "-
widow of· RamaliJ?gam succeeding in the pending
>-
appeal in the Probate Proceedings before the Privy
...
-
..
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
33
Council, the 2/5th share should also be surrendered
by the executors.
The appeals were then posted l•efore a Division
Bench of Balakrishanaiya and Kandaswami Pillai,
JJ. Before this newly constituted Division Bench,
a decree in terms alleged to be settled between the
parties was claimed by the widow and sons of
Ramalingam, but the Court by order dated March 15,
1949, declined to enter upon an enquiry as to the
alleged compromise,
because in their view the
compromise was not in the interest of the public
trust created by the will of .Hamalingam. The
appeals were heard and on April 2, I9rn, the two
Judges constituting the Bench differed. Balakrishanaiya, J., in exercise of the powers under s. 15(:>) of
the MJsore High Uourt Regulation 1884 referred
the appeals to "a Full Bench for decision under
s1;1ction 15(3) of the High Court Act." The appeals
were then heard by a Full Bench of Medappa,
Acting C.J., Balakrisbana.iya and Mallappa, JJ. For
reasons which will be set out in detail hereafter, no
arguments were adva.nced on behalf of the plaintiffs
in support of the decree of the District Judge, and
the appeals were allowe-d, and the plaintiff's suits
were dismissed.
An application for review of judgment was submitted by the plaintiffs on diverse
• ground!!, but that application was also dismissed.
After the disposal of the suits in the Bangalore
Court, in suit No. 214 of 1944 it was submitted
before the Madras High Court by the executors that
the judgment of the Mysore High Court dismissing
plaintiffs' suit for possession of immovable properties and for an order for retransfer of shares of the
India Sugars & Refineries Ltd., was re,s judicata
between the parties and accordingly the suit filed by
the plaintiffs in the Madras High Court be dismissed. The plaintiffs contended that as to immovables
in Madras, the Mysore judgment was not oonclusivo
because the Mysore Court was not competent to
19611
R. Vishwan.than
v.
Rukn-uJ-mulle Syed
Abdul Woji~
Shah J.
R .. Vishwanathan
..
, Rultn-ul-mulk SY•d
A~dul Wojid
sh,h J.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ~rn63J
adjudicate upon the title of the plaintiffs to the
iYladras properties and that the Co1irt did not, in
fact, adjudicate upon the cl'iilll of the plaintiffs, and
that, in any event, tho judgment was not conclusive
because Medappa, C.J., and· Balakrishanayia, J.,
showed bias before and dutin15 the hearing of the
appeals they were incompetent to sit in the Full
Bench, and "their judgment was coram rwn judice".
On "the preliminary irnne of res judicata",
Rajagopafan, J., held that the Full Bench judgment
of the Mysore High Court did not bar the hearing of
the suit in regard to the immovable properties in
Madras claimed by the plaintiffs for two resons (1)
that the title to those properties was not, in fact,
adjudicated upon by the Mysore Court, and (2) that
the lex situs governed the immovable properties in
Madras. The learned Judge a.Jso indicated the
scope of the enquiry on the plea of conclusiveness
of the foreign judgment raised b,y the executors. He
observed that the Madras High Court not investigate the allegations made against the Judges of the
Mysore High Court in the cond11ct of the appeal
itself, or of the property or co1Tectness of their
decisions in the appeals or in the legal procPedings
connected therewith, but two questions fell outside
the purview of that rule; (a) whether Mr, Medappa
had been and was using a motor car belonging to
the estate in the hands of the executors, and (b)
whether Mr. Medappa Hent for L.S. R1ju who was
engaged to appear as counsel for the plaintiffs and
\
-
· attempted to dissuade him from conducting the case
for the "plaintiffs' family". If these two allegations
were establish€d, observed Rajagopalan, J., they
might possibly furnish pwof that one of the Judges
of the Mysore High Court who
h,~d heard the
appeals was "interested" in the subject matter of
suit itself and that would be a ground falling within
the scope of exception (d) to 8. 13 Civil Prorednre
Code. He accordingly ruled that the plaintiffs may •
-
a s.c.R.
SUPREME COtJltT REPORTS
35
lead evidence on those two allegations but not as to
the rest. Against
the order, two appeals were
preferred to the High Court under the Letters
Patent, one by the plaintiffs and the other by the
executors.
The
plaintiffs
submitted
that
Rajagopalan, J., was in error in restricting the scope_
of the enquiry into the allegations of bias, interest
and partiality. The executors conte.1ded that
the judgment of the Mysore High Court was
conclusive
as to title to all properties movable and . immovable
belonging to the • estate
of Ramalingam and disposed of by the will
and that no enquiry at all as to the allegation of·
bias and proof of interest, about the use by Mr.
Medappa of a motor car belonging to the estate and
the dissuasi@n by Mr. Medappa of Raju should be
permitted. . The High Court of Madras held that
evidence about the attempts made to dissuade Raju
from appearing for the plaintiffs was admissible,
but not evidence relating to the use by Mr.
Medi:i.ppa of a motor car belonging to the estate.
They observed that even if the "Mercedes car" of
the estate was used by Mr. Meda.ppa, the user was
before he was appointed Judge of the Mysore High
Court and the motor car ha.d been sold away more
than three yearR before the date on which Mr.
MeJappa sat in the Full Bench and it could not
therefore be said that because he had used the car
some years before the date on which he sat in the
Full Bench, "he had so identified himself with the
executors that in taking part in the hearing before
the Full Bench," the proceeding was contriJ.ry to
natural justice. They also held that the judgment
of the Mysore High Court, unless the "plea coram
non judice" was established, was conclusive as to
all items of property in dispute in the suit, except
as to the four items of immoveable property in
Madras.
The suit waB thereafter allotted to the file of
Ra.ma.swami, J., for trial was heard together with
1962
R. Vishwanatlr.•n
v.
Rukn-ul-mulk Syed
Abdul Wajid
Shah J.
J961
R. V1's/iwanathan
v.
R1Jkn-ul-mulk Syed
Abdul W~Hd
Shah J-.
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963)
five other suits-Suits.Nos. 91of1944, 200of1944,
251 of 1944, 274 of 1944 and 344 of 194ti all of
which directly raised questions relating to Lhe
interest which the plaintiffs claimed in the estate
devised under the will as members OJ a joint-family.
By consent of parties, the evidence recorded in
Suit No. 60 of 1944 and Suit No. 6 IA of 1947 of
the file of the District Judge, Bangalore, was treated
as evidence in these suits and proceedings and
the record
of the Mysore High Court in the
civil suits
and the printed
record of
the
Privy
Council in
the
probate
preceedings
and the record in the
petition for a writ of
prohibition
filed in
this
Court
restraining
enforcement of the judgment of the Mysore Court
were treated as part of the record of the suit.
In Suit No. 214 of 1944, three principal
questions fell to be determined :
(l) whether the judgment of the Mysore
High Court holding that the estate 'devised
by Ramalingam by his will was bis selfaoquired property was conclusive as - to title
to
properties
movable and immovable,
situate without the jurisdiction of the Mysore
State;
(2) whether the proceeding in the Mysore
High Court in which the judgment pleaded
as - c0nclusive was rendered, was vitiated
because it was opposed to natural justice ;
and
(3) whether by his will dated September
IO; 1942, Ramalingam attempted to dispose
of the estate which belonged to the jointfamily of himself and his sons, the plaintiffs.
)...
Ramaswami, J, did not expressly deal with ''-
the first question, pr<·sumably because (so far as be
)..._
was concerned) it was concluded by the judgment
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
37
t of the
Division
Bench in ,appeals against the
interlocutory order relating to the scope of the
enquiry in the suit, but on the second and the third
questions he held in favour of the plaintiffs.
He
held that for diverse reasons the "Full Bench judgment of the High Court was coram non judice" and
therefore not conclusive within the meaning of s. 13
-,
of the Code of Civil Procedure, and 'that the
6vidence disclosed that the property movable and
immovable set out in the scheduled to the plaint
and the business conducted by Ramalingam belonged to the joint family of Ramalingam and his
soni!.
He accordingly decreed the claim of the
plaintiffs for possession of the property movable
and immovable), set out in the Schedule to the
lf plaint (except l 650 shares of the India Sugars and
Refinerie8 Ltd.) and directed an account of the
management by the executors of the properties
from the date of Ramalingam's death till delivery
of possession of the properties to the plaintiffs. He
also declared that the business carried on in the
name of Oriental Films at 9 Stringers St., G. T.
>, Madras, was the sole proprietary concern of the
joint family and the profits realised from "Palmgrove" and Vegetable Oil Factory constituted the
assets of the estate of Rama,lingam "subject to such
-
equities as might arise in favour of Narayanaswami
Mudaliar on the footing Of
the doctrine of
Quantam M eruit to b'3 determined by the final
decree or execution proceedings."
... ,
Against the j~dgment of Ramaswami, J. the
executors appealed to the High Court. The High
Court observed that the decision of the Mysore
High Court could not '•take effect in respect of thl:l
immovable properties situate in the State of
Madras; but it could ll'1turally affect the moveables
_,.(,,situate there. In fact, the immovable properties
-. in Madras State were not included in Mysore suite.
It is thereforli neoessary for the members of
1962
R. V ishu11nathan
v.
Rukn-ul-mulk Sy•d
Abiul Wajid
Shah J.
1VG2
R. Visl1w11natlian
••
·Ruku-uZ~mulk Syed
Abdul Wajid
Shah J.
38
STiTPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
Ramalingam's family to get rid of the deoision of
the Mysore High Court before they oan have any
chance of obtaining the movable properties of
Ramalingam situate
in the i::ltate." The High.
Court after an elaborate review of the evidence
held that the estate whioh Ramalingam sought
to dispose of by his will was joint-family estate,
and he was on that account incompetl(nt to dispose
of the same, and th_e plaintiffs were entitled to the
immovables in Madras, but as to movables the
judgement of the Mysore High Court was conclusive
there being no
reliabl~ evidence fo establish the
plea cif "coram non judice".
The High Court
accordingly modified the decree of the trial Court.
They confirmed the decree in so far as it related to
immovables in Madras and dismissed it as to the
rest. They further declared that the sale proceeds of a property called '•Palmgrove"-which was
execlud .!d from the Schedule to the plaint in the
Bangalore suit-"constituted the assets of the
said joint family" and on that footing gave certain
directions.
'(
Against the judgment of the High Court
modifying the decree of Mr. Justice Ramaswami
two appeals-Nos. 277 and 278 ()f 1958-are
preferred : Appeal No. 277 is by the plaintiffs, and
~
Appeal ,No. 278 of 1858 is by the executors. The
plaintiffs contend that the judgment of the
Mysore Full Bench is not conclusive between parties
in the Madras suit, for the Mysore Court was not /--
a court of competent jurisdiction as to property
movable and immovable outside the territory of
the Mysore State, that the judgment was not
binding because the Judges who presided· over the
Full Bench were not competent by the law of the
Mysore State to decide the dispute and that in any,
event it "was coram nonjudice" because they were )-. .
interested or biased and the proceedings before·
them were oouduoted in a inaDn11r oppOllld to
,_
'·'
:
•
I
.c
;. i
t
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
39
natural justice. On behalf of the executors, it is
submitted that the jud~ment was conclusive as to,
the nature of "the Kolar Gold Fields business",
which was found to be the separate business of
Ramalingam, and the Madras High Court wal'!
only competent to decide whether the immovables
in Madras were not acquired out of the earnings
of that business.
Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
Act V of 19('8, provides :
"13.
A foreign
judgment shall be
conclusive as to any matter thereby directly
adjudicated upon between the same parties
or between parties under whom they or any
of t,hem claim litigating under the sam.e title
except-
( a) where it has not been pronounced
by a Court of competent jurisdiction ;•
(b) where it has not been given on the
merits of the case ;
(c) where it appears on the face of the
proceedings to be founded on an
incorrect view of international law
or a refusal to recognise the law of
India in cases in which such law is
applicable.
( d) where the proceedings in which the .
judgment was obtained are opposed
to natural justice ;
,
(e) where it has been obtained by fraud;
( f) where it sustains a claim founded on
a
brea.ch of any law in force 'n
lndia."
1962
R. Yislrwllfl•lhan
v.
Rukn-ul-mulk S11ed
Abdul Wajid
Shah J.
(
1962
R VishwJ.rt.•lhUn
Y,
Rukn-tt~-muJI(, ,'))t-.d '
Abdul WajiJ
·
Sha/iJ,
40
. tslfPREME COURT REPORTS [1963)
By that enactment a foreign judgment is
made conclusive as to all matters directly adjudi·
cated upon between the parties, except as. to oases
set out in ols.(a) to (f).
The judgment of the
Mysore High Cour.t is, it is claimed by the plaintiff~
not conclusive because-
( I) it has not been pronounced by a court
of competent jurisdiction,
(2) that on the face of the proceeding it
was founded on incorrect view of the
international law, and
(3) that the proceeding in which the
judgment was pronounced was oppos·
ed to natural justice.
The dispute in the appeal file!l by the plaintiffd
primarily
relates ·to the shares of the India
Sugars & Refineries Ltd, and.movables in Madras. ·
The judgment of the Mysore Court qua the immov·
ab)E's in Mysore has become final and -is not and
cannot be challenged in th.is Court.
The Mysore
High Court was competent to adjudicate upon, title
to immovables within the territory of the State of
Mysore, in the suits instituted by the plaintiffs
against the executors. In considering whether a judgment of a. foreign Court is conclusive, the courts
·in India will not inquire whether conclusions
recorded thereby are supported by the evidence, or
are otherwise correct, because the binding character
.of the judgment may be displaced only by establishing that the case falls within one or more of the
six clauses of s. 13, and not otherwise. The regis·
tered office of the India Sugars & Refineries Ltd.,
was in Bellary in the Province of Madras, and the
situs of the shares which are movables-may normally be the place ,where they can be effectively
dealt with (see Erie Boock Co. v. Attorney.General for
Ontario(!) and Bra8sard v. Smith('). The situs of the
(2) (1925J fl.C, ~72.
,•
I
•• .
•
\
'
•.
I.
\
...
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
41
shares of the India Sugars & Refineries Ltd.