CASE REVIEW OF R. VISWANATHAN V.

RUKN-UL-MULK SYED
ABDUL WAJID 1963 SCR (3) 22

 Ramalingam passed away in Bangalore, leaving behind a will that bequeathed substantial real
and personal properties in the States of Mysore and Madras. The appointed executors sought
Probate for the will, which was granted by the district judge. In response, Ramalingam's sons
initiated two lawsuits in the District Court, Bangalore, and the District Court Civil and
Military Station, pursuing possession of the Mysore immovable properties and the movable
assets outlined in the will. Another suit was filed in the Madras High Court for possession of
both movable and immovable properties in Madras mentioned in the will.
 The basis for these suits was the claim that all the properties were joint family assets, and
Ramalingam lacked the authority to dispose of them through his will. The Madras suit was
put on hold pending the resolution of the Bangalore suits. The district judge ruled in Favor of
the sons, stating that the will-devised property belonged to the joint family, rendering the will
ineffective. The executors appealed to the Mysore High Court, which initially upheld the
lower court's decision. However, upon referral to a full Bench, the appeals were allowed, and
the Mysore High Court determined that the property was Ramalingam's self-acquired,
dismissing the suit.
 Subsequently, in the Madras suit, the executors argued that the Mysore High Court's
judgment was binding and the suit was barred as res judicata. The plaintiffs countered that the
Mysore Court did not address their claim regarding the Madras immovables, and the Mysore
judgment, being a foreign one, was not conclusive due to a lack of natural justice under
section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They further alleged bias by the Full Bench and
incompetence to sit on the case. The Trial judge deemed the Mysore High Court's judgment
coram non judice and nonconclusive under section 13, decreeing in Favor of the plaintiffs.
 On appeal, the High Court disputed the finding that the Mysore Full Bench was coram non
judice, upheld the joint family nature of the properties disposed of by Ramalingam's will, and
concluded that the Mysore judgment did not impact the Madras immovables but was
conclusive for the movables, including shares in the India Sugars & Refineries Ltd. The trial
Court's decree was modified to dismiss the suit concerning the movables outside the State of
Mysore.
 ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT OF LAW

 The primary issue is the conclusiveness of the Mysore High Court's judgment, particularly in
determining the joint family nature of the properties disposed of by Ramalingam's will and its
impact on the suit, including immovable properties in Madras and movable assets such as
shares in India Sugars & Refineries Ltd.

 Another crucial matter is whether a foreign court possesses the jurisdiction to render a
judgment in rem, capable of enforcement or recognition in an Indian court. This involves
exploring the legal implications and recognition of judgments from foreign courts within the
Indian legal framework.

CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT

The appellant argued that the Mysore Full Bench's judgment lacks conclusiveness in the
Madras suit. They contended that the Mysore Court did not have jurisdiction over properties,
both movable and immovable, situated outside the boundaries of the Mysore State. According
to the appellant, the judgment is not binding due to the alleged incompetence of the Judges
who presided over the Full Bench, as per the laws of the Mysore State governing their ability
to decide the dispute. Furthermore, the appellant asserted that the judgment was "coram non
judice" because of potential interest or bias on the part of the judges and claimed that the
proceedings were conducted in a manner contrary to the principles of natural justice.

BY RESPONDENT

The respondent submitted that the judgment was and the Madras High Court was competent
to decide whether the immovables in Madras were not acquired out of the earnings of that
business.
JUDGEMENT

The judgment clarified that the Mysore High Court's decisiveness varied concerning the
Madras suit. While it was not conclusive regarding immovable properties in Madras, it held
conclusiveness concerning the shares of the Company located in the State of Madras. The
ruling emphasized that a foreign court can possess jurisdiction to issue a judgment in rem,
enforceable or recognized in an Indian court, provided the subject matter involves property
whether movable or immovable within that court’s jurisdiction.

The Mysore Courts, however, were deemed incompetent to provide a binding judgment
concerning immovable property located in the State of Madras. Additionally, it was noted
that the Mysore Courts did not issue any judgment regarding immovable property outside the
jurisdiction of Mysore.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

In the case of Viswanathan vs. Rukn-Ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid (1 1963 SCR (3) 22), it has
been held and affirmed that in considering whether a judgment or decision of a foreign Court
is conclusive, the courts in India will not inquire or consider whether conclusions recorded
thereby or therein are supported by the evidence, or are otherwise correct, because the
binding character and nature of the judgment may be displaced only and only, by establishing
that the case falls within one or more of the six clauses of section 13, and not otherwise. An
analysis of Section 13 leads us to believe that there can be different interpretations of the
clauses laid out in this section, and different courts may interpret the meaning of this in a
manner that may not always be similar. To sum up the previous discussion, a foreign
judgment is generally considered binding between the involved parties, with exceptions
outlined in Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). If a foreign judgment does not
meet the criteria specified in Section 13, as illustrated in the case of Middle East Bank Ltd.
vs. Rajendra Singh Sethia1, it may be deemed inconclusive. Section 13 of the CPC
enumerates conditions under which a foreign judgment can be rendered inconclusive,
including if it was not pronounced by a competent court, lacked merits in the case, is not

1
(AIR 1991 Cal 335)
recognized by Indian law, violates principles of natural justice, was obtained through fraud,
or breaches any Indian law in force at the time. Should the judgment fall under any of these
circumstances, it loses its conclusiveness on matters it has addressed, making it susceptible to
collateral attack based on the grounds specified in Section 13.

CONCLUSION

A clear legal distinction exists between recognition and enforcement, with Section 13 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 serving as the foundation for recognizing a foreign judgment
—a preliminary step before its enforcement by the courts. On the other hand, Section 44-A of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 addresses the enforcement of foreign judgments from both
reciprocating and non-reciprocating territories.

Despite India not being a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, the recognition of
foreign judgments is established through bilateral treaties. In the absence of such treaties,
India has entered into specific unilateral agreements concerning the enforcement of foreign
judgments.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides precise definitions for Foreign Court and
Foreign judgment:

 Section 2(5) defines a Foreign Court as a court situated outside India and not established
or continued by the authority of the Central Government.
 Section 2(6) articulates the definition of a foreign judgment as the judgment of a foreign
court.

In essence, a foreign judgment is the resolution of a case presented before a foreign court.
India's legal stance on foreign judgments is clear and outlines a straightforward procedure for
their enforcement. While debates exist regarding the categorization of reciprocating and non-
reciprocating territories, such distinctions arise due to the lack of information from other
parties involved in bilateral treaties. India ensures justice by enforcing various judgments,
and specific conditions must be met for the enforcement of foreign judgments, ensuring
fairness to all parties involved. Consequently, it can be asserted that India possesses an
effective legal framework for enforcing foreign judgments within its jurisdiction.