Sankaran Govindan v. Lakshmi Bharathi (AIR 1974 SC 1764)

Facts of the Case

The dispute centered on the succession of assets of Dr. Krishnan, an Indian who died intestate in England.

• Krishnan went to England in 1920 for medical studies and successfully established a practice in Sheffield, accumulating significant movable and immovable assets.

• He died intestate in England on October 18, 1950, without a wife or children.

• English Proceedings: The High Court of Judicature in England issued an order (Ex. 56) determining that Krishnan was domiciled in England at the time of his death.

• Letters of administration were granted, and the sale proceeds of his English assets were transferred to his brother and sister (Defendants 1 and 2).

• Indian Proceedings: The plaintiffs (other family members) sought partition of Krishnan's assets under the Travancore Ezhava Act, arguing that he retained his Indian domicile.

• Trial Court & High Court: Both courts in India initially ruled that Krishnan was not domiciled in England. They found the English Ex. 56 order was obtained by fraud and was against natural justice, thus not operating as res judicata. They held that succession to movables should be governed by the Ezhava Act. (The High Court, however, applied English law to the immovable property in Sheffield.)

The present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the English court's Ex. 56 order determining Krishnan's domicile was conclusive (res judicata).

2. Whether the foreign judgment was vitiated by fraud or was opposed to natural justice under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that Krishnan died domiciled in England, thereby making English law applicable to the succession of his movable assets.

Rule

A foreign judgment will not be conclusive and cannot operate as res judicata if it falls under the exceptions listed in Section 13 of the CPC, including being obtained by fraud or being opposed to natural justice.

• Fraud: The alleged fraud must be extrinsic or collateral to the matter adjudicated, not merely based on alleged false evidence already ruled upon by the foreign court. New and significant facts must be proven to substantiate the claim of fraud.

• Natural Justice: A procedural failure must be repugnant to natural justice (e.g., lack of notice or proper representation). A mere error of law in the foreign judgment does not constitute a violation of natural justice.

Held

The Supreme Court:

• Fraud: Found no sufficient evidence of fraud in obtaining the Ex. 56 order. The Court stressed that allowing re-adjudication based merely on alleged false statements made during the original trial would defeat the principle of res judicata. The alleged fraud was not "extrinsic or collateral."

• Natural Justice: Addressed the claim that the English court violated natural justice by improperly appointing a court officer as guardian ad litem for the minors. The Court held that since the natural guardians were given notice and chose not to appear, the subsequent appointment of a court officer met the requirements of substantial compliance with natural justice.

• Domicile of Choice: The Court undertook a fresh examination of the evidence regarding Krishnan's intention (animus manendi).

  • It gave less weight to Krishnan's statements about returning to India, viewing them as insincere attempts to extract money from his brother.

  • It gave more weight to Krishnan's consistent conduct, statements to Miss Hepworth, and his establishment of a successful life in Sheffield, which indicated a true intention to remain in England indefinitely.

  • The Court concluded that Krishnan did acquire a domicile of choice in England.

• Conclusion: Since the Ex. 56 order was not vitiated by fraud or lack of natural justice, and the facts supported a finding of English domicile, the English law governed the succession to Krishnan's movable property (lex domicilii). The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the lower Indian courts on the issue of domicile and the Travancore Ezhava Act's applicability.

Commentary

The Tenacity of Domicile of Origin

This case provides a powerful illustration of the high threshold required to prove the abandonment of a domicile of origin (India) and the acquisition of a domicile of choice (England). While the domicile of origin is tenacious, it can be overcome by proof of:

1. Factum: Actual residence in the new country (Krishnan's 30 years in England).

2. Animus Manendi: The intention to reside there permanently or indefinitely.

The Supreme Court's critical analysis of Krishnan's motivations for claiming an intent to return to India shows that the animus manendi must be genuine and not merely a pretext for financial gain.

Fraud and Foreign Judgments

The ruling clarifies the narrow scope of the fraud exception under the CPC regarding foreign judgments. Perjury or false evidence given during the trial is generally not enough to set aside a foreign judgment on grounds of fraud, as the original court has already adjudicated that evidence. The fraud must be extrinsic—a trick or imposition practiced on the court itself to prevent a fair trial (e.g., no proper notice being served, as held in Sundaram Pillai v. Kandeswami Pillai).