R. VISWANATHAN versus RUKN-UL-M.ULK SYED ABDUL WAJID

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 22 · Decided: 04-05-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 Law-
Joint 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. 
There-
upon 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 Bala-
krishanaiya, 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 res-
pect 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 con-
clusive 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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.