SANKARAN GOVINDAN V. LAKSHMI BHARATHI AIR 1974 SC 1764

SANKARAN GOVINDAN V. LAKSHMI BHARATHI AIR 1974 SC 1764

 

FACTS

• Krishnan went to England in 1920 for medical studies, supported by his family initially (i.e., Padmanabhan, Elder Brother) and later by Miss Hepworth.
• Krishnan established a successful medical practice in Sheffield and accumulated significant assets.
• Krishnan died intestate in England on October 18, 1950, without wife or children.
• Krishnan’s assets included a house at 75 Woodhouse Road, Sheffield, and valuable movable properties and money. In India, Krishnan was allotted a share in his family properties after a partition.
• Arksey and Mary Woodliff obtained letters of administration for Krishnan's estate in England based on a power of attorney from the first defendant (brothers of Krishnan).
• The High Court of Judicature in England determined that Krishnan was domiciled in England at the time of his death (Ex. 56 order).
• The sale proceeds from Krishnan’s assets in England were transferred to the first and second defendant (Sister of Krishnan) under indemnity bonds.
• The plaintiffs (family members) sought partition of Krishnan's assets under the provisions of the Travancore Ezhava Act.
• The first defendant/appellant contended that Krishnan’s domicile in England meant English law should govern the succession of his movable assets.
• The trial court ruled that Krishnan was not domiciled in England. It found that the Ex. 56 order was obtained by fraud and was against natural justice, thus it did not operate as res judicata.
• Consequently, the succession to Krishnan's movable properties should be governed by the Travancore Ezhava Act.
• The High Court confirmed the trial court’s finding.It held that Krishnan did not acquire a domicile of choice in England and that succession to his movables should be governed by the Ezhava Act.
• However, it also ruled that succession to the immovable property in Sheffield is governed by English law, and the sale proceeds should be divided between the first and second defendants alone.

 

ISSUE

• Whether Ex. 56 order operates as res judicata on the question of Krishnan's domicile.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that Krishnan died domiciled in England and thereby decide the applicable law for the succession of his movable assets and moneys.
• At last, Whether the Foreign Judgment obtained by fraud or not?

 

RULE

• The mere fact that a foreign judgment is wrong in law does not make it one opposed to ‘natural justice’. There must be something in the procedure anterior to the judgment which is repugnant to natural justice

 

HELD

• The Court has the authority to consider a case to invalidate a judgment obtained through perjury. However, this authority must be used cautiously to avoid re-adjudication of issues already settled in the original trial, in line with the principle of res judicata. The fraud must be a significant matter and must be supported by evidence that was not known to the parties during the original trial.
• The Court stressed that the fraud in question must be external or collateral, not merely based on alleged false statements made during the trial, which were already ruled on by the court. New and significant facts, not presented in the original trial, must be proven to support the argument that the original judgment was obtained through fraud.
• The Court examined whether the proceedings in the English court, where the order (Ex. 56) was obtained, violated natural justice. It was argued that the minors were not properly represented as their natural guardians were not appointed as guardian ad litem. The Court concluded that since the natural guardians were given notice and chose not to appear on behalf of the minors, the appointment of a court officer as guardian ad litem met the requirements of natural justice.
• It was observed that the minors did not submit to the jurisdiction of the English Court through their guardians, suggesting that the English court's ruling might not be conclusive regarding the minors. The Court reaffirmed the principle that a foreign court must have international jurisdiction for its judgment to be recognized or enforced in India.
• The Court carefully reviewed the evidence regarding Krishnan's intention to return to India. Krishnan's statements about his intention to return were considered insincere and intended to extract financial benefits from Padmanabhan (Elder brother). The Court gave more weight to Krishnan's consistent conduct and statements to Miss Hepworth, which indicated his true intention to remain in England. Hence, domiciled in England.
• The Court found no evidence to suggest that the administrators who obtained the Ex. 56 order engaged in any fraud or that the English court was misled by false evidence regarding Krishnan's domicile.
• The Supreme Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence of fraud in obtaining the Ex. 56 order to justify setting aside the judgment. The proceedings were found to be conducted in substantial compliance with natural justice, and there was no serious breach to refuse recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment.

 

COMMENTARY

• [S 13] When foreign judgment not conclusive.

A foreign judgment obtained by fraud will not operate as res judicata and cannot be conclusive. In the case of domestic judgments, the fraud must be extrinsic to the matter tried. Apparently, this rule does not apply to a foreign judgment (SP Changalvaraya Naidu (deed) by LRs v Japannath (deed) by LRs, AIR 1994 SC 853), but see Sundaram Pillai v Kandeswami Pillai, where it was held that a foreign judgment said to have been obtained on perjured evidence could not be said to have been obtained by fraud. It would be fraud if the court was imposed upon or tricked, as a result whereof the order came to be passed.