Res inter alios acta: Revisiting a Classical Exclusionary Rule in Indian Evidence Law

Res inter alios acta: Revisiting a Classical Exclusionary Rule in Indian Evidence Law

I. Introduction

The Latin maxim res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet – “things done between others ought not to prejudice one who is a stranger to them” – has long served as an exclusionary principle in the law of evidence. Codified implicitly in Sections 43 and 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“IEA”) and reinforced by a large body of case-law, the maxim restricts the admissibility and the conclusiveness of transactions, statements, judgments or conduct involving third parties when tendered against a non-party. Despite its classical origins, the doctrine continues to animate contemporary litigation across domains as diverse as criminal trials, inheritance disputes, bail applications and corporate oppression suits. This article undertakes a critical re-examination of the doctrine, analysing its conceptual foundations, statutory embedding, and modern judicial treatment, with particular reference to the decisions enumerated in the Reference Materials.

II. Conceptual Foundations and Statutory Location

1. Historical pedigree

At common law, res inter alios acta emerged both as a species of the hearsay rule and as a facet of natural justice: it was considered “unjust that a man should be affected, and still more be bound, by proceedings in which he could not make defence, cross-examine, or appeal” (Kompalli Nageswara Rao v. SDC, 1957 AP HC)[1]. Indian courts, inheriting this tradition, have consistently insisted that judgments in personam bind only parties and privies, unless they fall within the recognised exceptions of Section 41 (judgments in rem) or Section 42 (public nature) of the IEA.

2. Statutory framework

  • Section 43 IEA (“Judgments etc. other than those mentioned in Sections 40, 41 and 42, when relevant”): renders such judgments relevant only if they are inter partes and when the fact that they were pronounced is directly in issue or is relevant under some other provision.
  • Section 44 IEA: allows parties to impeach the competence or integrity of such judgments when relied upon against them.
  • Order II Rule 2 and Section 11 Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”): though principally concerned with res judicata, operationalise the same policy of finality limited to parties and privies; strangers remain unaffected.

III. Contours of the Doctrine: Admissibility versus Conclusiveness

Modern Indian jurisprudence draws a nuanced distinction between (a) the admissibility of third-party acts or judgments and (b) the effect or weight accorded to them. In Collector of Gorakhpur v. Palakdhari Singh (1889 All HC) the Court clarified that although the stranger judgment is prima facie res inter alios acta, it “ought not to be shut out” if it constitutes the only available evidence, but its probative value remains open to challenge[2]. This two-step approach has subsequently permeated both civil and criminal adjudication.

IV. Interaction with Allied Doctrines

1. Res judicata and constructive res judicata

Unlike res inter alios acta, the doctrine of res judicata (Section 11 CPC) attaches issue/claim preclusion only where parties (or their privies) are common. The Kerala SCDRC in Deepak Jain v. Emaar MGF (2015) clarified that the principle is aimed at preventing abuse of process, whereas res inter alios acta is directed against evidentiary unfairness[3]. Nevertheless, both doctrines share the foundational concern for legality of process and finality.

2. Post-litem-motam and Statements under Section 164 CrPC

Statements recorded after litigation begins are generally disfavoured as self-serving. In Duraisamy v. State (2019 Mad HC) the Court labelled a Section 164 confession as “recorded behind the back of the accused – res inter alios acta,” emphasising that such statements lack substantive value unless corroborated in court[4].

3. Corporate and partnership liabilities

The Kerala High Court in Vinod Babu v. District Collector (2005) applied the maxim to shield an incoming partner from tax liabilities incurred before his admission, holding that the inter-se arrangement among old partners is res inter alios acta vis-à-vis creditors[5].

V. Analytical Discussion of Selected Decisions

1. Inheritance litigation: State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh (1983 SC)

The Supreme Court’s rigorous scrutiny of genealogical evidence emphasised that family declarations made post litem motam were inadmissible unless independently corroborated. The Court cautioned against relying on pedigrees that were res inter alios acta and not proved to have been acted upon by parties having proprietary interest[6]. The decision therefore underscores the exclusionary thrust of the maxim in succession disputes.

2. Bail parity and co-accused orders: G. Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka (2015 Kar HC)

While granting bail under Section 439 CrPC, the High Court noted that all co-accused except A-4 and A-9 had already been enlarged on bail. Technically, the bail orders in favour of co-accused are res inter alios acta and non-binding, yet the Court treated them as persuasive parity considerations, illustrating that the maxim bars legal effect but not necessarily factual influence in discretionary decisions.

3. Circumstantial criminal cases: State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006 SC)

Section 106 IEA places an explanatory burden on the accused for facts “especially within his knowledge.” The Court held that the accused’s silence with respect to facts within his exclusive domain could legitimately invite adverse inference. Importantly, the judgment clarifies that res inter alios acta does not protect the accused from the logical consequences of his own unexplained conduct; the doctrine is confined to acts of others.

4. Corporate oppression suits: NCLT twin orders in 2024

In Deepa Raj v. Peter K Joseph and the connected company petition, the Tribunal declined to treat a 2013 judgment validating an unregistered trademark assignment as conclusive, observing that reliance on such assignment was statutorily barred under Section 45(2) of the Trade Marks Act, and therefore could not be protected under res judicata or invoked against strangers. The earlier decision was effectively categorised as res inter alios acta[7].

5. Ancient authority: Bain v. Central Vermont Railway (1921 PC)

Though a Privy Council decision under Québec civil law, Bain is still cited for the proposition that contracts among tortfeasors are res inter alios acta as to third-party victims. The trial judge’s error in disregarding the operational agreement altogether was corrected on other grounds, but the dicta confirm the limited scope of the maxim: internal covenants cannot defeat an external tort claim.

VI. Exceptions and Pragmatic Relaxations

  • Judgments in rem (Section 41 IEA): Probate, matrimonial status, insolvency, etc., bind the world at large.
  • Chain of title exception: Where a prior judgment forms a link in the claimant’s title, it is admissible even against strangers (Rahim Unnissa Begam v. Aiyangar 1919 Mad HC; Suppa Bhattar v. Sokkaya Bhattar 1915 Mad HC)[8].
  • Conduct evidence: Section 8 IEA renders third-party conduct relevant if it explains or is influenced by facts-in-issue. The 2023 Supreme Court decision in Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar treats the accused’s conduct as substantive and admissible despite being external to the main event.
  • Statutory overrides: Election cases (e.g., P.C. Purushothama Reddiar v. Perumal, 1972 SC) recognise police reports – otherwise acts of third parties – as admissible official records under Section 35 IEA notwithstanding the maxim.

VII. Doctrinal Critique and Policy Considerations

The continued vitality of res inter alios acta demonstrates Indian courts’ commitment to procedural fairness. Nevertheless, categorical exclusion may generate probative deficits where independent evidence is scarce. The gradual judicial shift toward conditional admissibility – allowing introduction subject to the opponent’s right to impeach – aligns with Bentham’s preference for “free proof” tempered by safeguards, rather than absolute bars.

Further, the maxim must be reconciled with modern doctrines of representative litigation, class actions, and public interest litigations where strict party identity is loosened (Pratap Karan, 2015 SC). In such scenarios, a mechanical application could impede collective justice.

VIII. Conclusion

Res inter alios acta remains a cornerstone of Indian evidence law, preserving the adversarial requirement that no person be prejudiced by transactions or judgments to which he was a stranger. Recent jurisprudence illustrates both its resilience and its adaptability: courts exclude third-party material when invoked as conclusive, yet may admit it as persuasive or explanatory, always preserving the non-party’s opportunity to contest. As litigation grows increasingly multi-actor and transnational, the doctrine’s principled flexibility – rooted in Sections 43-44 IEA and refined by more than a century of precedent – will continue to guide the delicate balance between probative utility and procedural equity.

Footnotes

  1. Kompalli Nageswara Rao & Ors. v. Special Deputy Collector, 1957 AIR AP 488.
  2. Collector of Gorakhpur v. Palakdhari Singh, ILR 11 All 100 (1889).
  3. Deepak Jain v. Emaar MGF Land Ltd., 2015 SCDRC (New Delhi).
  4. Duraisamy & Ors. v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 1667.
  5. Vinod Babu v. District Collector, 2005 SCC OnLine Ker 435.
  6. State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, (1983) 3 SCC 118.
  7. NCLT, Kochi Bench, Deepa Raj v. Peter K Joseph and Goodness Media Pvt. Ltd. (Orders dated 6 June 2024).
  8. Rahim Unnissa Begam & Ors. v. M.A. Srinivasa Aiyangar, AIR 1920 Mad 6; Suppa Bhattar v. Sokkaya Bhattar, (1915) ILR 38 Mad 24.