BSA Section 37 — Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36 when relevant

Summary

Judgments, orders, or decrees that are not covered by sections 34, 35, and 36 are generally irrelevant, unless the very existence of that judgment, order, or decree is itself a fact in issue, or unless it becomes relevant under some other provision of this Adhiniyam.

Illustration (a): A and B separately sue C for the same libel that reflects on both of them. In each case, C claims the alleged libel is true, and the circumstances are such that it is probably true in both cases or in neither. A gets a decree against C because C failed to prove his justification. That decree is irrelevant as between B and C.

Illustration (b): A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from A, and B is convicted. A later sues C for the same cow, which B had sold to C before the conviction. As between A and C, the judgment against B is irrelevant.

Illustration (c): A obtains a decree for possession of land against B. C, B's son, murders A as a result. The existence of the judgment is relevant because it shows a motive for the crime.

Illustration (d): A is charged with theft and also with having been previously convicted of theft. The previous conviction is relevant because it is a fact in issue.

Illustration (e): A is tried for the murder of B. The fact that B prosecuted A for libel and that A was convicted and sentenced is relevant under section 6, because it shows the motive for the fact in issue.

Official Text

Judgments or orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Adhiniyam.

Illustrations.

(a) A and B separately sue C for a libel which reflects upon each of them. C in each case says that the matter alleged to be libellous is true, and the circumstances are such that it is probably true in each case, or in neither. A obtains a decree against C for damages on the ground that C failed to make out his justification. The fact is irrelevant as between B and C.

(b) A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him. B is convicted. A afterwards sues C for the cow, which B had sold to him before his conviction. As between A and C, the judgment against B is irrelevant.

(c) A has obtained a decree for the possession of land against B. C, B's son, murders A in consequence. The existence of the judgment is relevant, as showing motive for a crime.

(d) A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of theft. The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue.

(e) A is tried for the murder of B. The fact that B prosecuted A for libel and that A was convicted and sentenced is relevant under section 6 as showing the motive for the fact in issue.

Sections referred to

• BSA §6 — Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct
• BSA §34 — Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial
• BSA §35 — Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction
• BSA §36 — Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in section 35

Related Judgments

• 8146/2024; MRS. MINAL DESAI vs MR. KAWALJEET SINGH — Delhi High Court (2025)
• NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU vs KISHAN LAL AND OTHERS — Supreme Court of India (1991)
• SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA vs PANASIA ADVISORS LTD. & ANR — Supreme Court of India (2015)
• be carrying on business or occupied as; The Directors of Shivam Multim vs Prabhudas Liladhar Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the, 23-nmi — Bombay High Court (Mumbai Principal Seat) (2012)
• KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO — Supreme Court of India (1975)
• DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT vs DEEPAK MAHAJAN AND ANR — Supreme Court of India (1994)

Old <-> New Code Mapping

• IEA §43 — Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 34, 35 and 36 when relevant