Section 13: When foreign judgment not conclusive

Leading cases

• Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991)A foreign divorce decree passed by a court lacking jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, on a ground unknown to that Act, against a wife who did not submit to the forum, cannot be recognised in India.

Questions on this section

7 questions in 20 of our papers cite Section 13. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. Consider the following statements regarding Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 1. A foreign judgment is not conclusive where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on a refusal to recognise the law of India in a case in which that law is applicable. 2. A foreign judgment is not conclusive where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. 3. A foreign judgment passed ex parte can never be treated as a judgment given on the merits of the case. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

   A.2 and 3 onlyB.1, 2 and 3C.1 and 2 onlyD.1 and 3 only
   Show answer

2. 2. In Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991), a husband obtained a divorce decree from a foreign Court on a ground not available under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, under which the parties had married, and the wife had not submitted to that Court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that such a decree:

   A.is valid in India, but only after it is registered with an Indian Family CourtB.cannot be recognised, as it was not granted under the law under which they marriedC.is conclusive in India, as the foreign Court had assumed jurisdiction on residenceD.can be recognised once the wife has been heard in fresh proceedings in a District Court
   Show answer

3. 3. In International Woollen Mills v. Standard Wool (U.K.) Ltd. (2001), an English court had passed an ex parte money decree after the defendant, who had been served, did not defend; no evidence was led and the plaintiff's claim was not examined. The decree-holder sought execution in India under Section 44A CPC. The Supreme Court held that the decree:

   A.was conclusive, since an executing court in India cannot look into how the foreign court reached its decisionB.was not conclusive only because, being ex parte, it was opposed to natural justice under Section 13(d)C.was conclusive, since a decree of a superior court of a reciprocating territory is presumed to be on the meritsD.was not given on the merits of the case under Section 13(b) CPC, so execution could not be ordered
   Show answer