Res inter alios acta
Latin: A thing done between others
Also called: Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet
A transaction, statement or judgment between other persons should not prejudice someone who was not a party to it. It is a rule of evidence and of privity.
Explained
The full form is res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet: a transaction between others ought not to harm a third person. In the law of evidence it means that what others did, said or suffered in a matter to which a party was a stranger is generally not evidence against that party, because he had no chance to take part in or contest it. In contract it underlies the rule of privity, that an agreement does not bind or burden a person who is not a party to it.
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 does not use the maxim, but several provisions reflect it. Section 37 (earlier Section 43 of the Evidence Act) makes judgments, orders and decrees other than those in Sections 34, 35 and 36 irrelevant, unless their existence is a fact in issue or relevant under another provision. Illustration (b) to Section 37 shows that a conviction of B for stealing A's cow is irrelevant in A's later suit against C, who bought the cow from B. Similarly, under Section 24 (earlier Section 30) a confession may be considered against a co-accused only when they are tried jointly for the same offence.
The maxim has recognised exceptions. A judgment in rem in probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction under Section 35 is relevant and conclusive whoever the parties are. A judgment on a matter of a public nature is relevant under Section 36, though not conclusive. Statements and acts of a conspirator about the common design are relevant against each conspirator under Section 8.
Examiners test the link between the maxim and Section 37, the distinction between judgments inter partes and judgments in rem, and why a confession of a person not jointly tried cannot be used against the accused.
What the law says
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.
Judgments other than those in Sections 34 to 36 irrelevant
Earlier law: IEA 43. Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, when relevant.
(1) A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court or Tribunal, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant.
(2) Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof that—
(i) any legal character, which it confers accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation;
Exception: judgments in rem are relevant and conclusive
Earlier law: IEA 41. Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction.
When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.
Explanation I.—“Offence”, as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence.
Explanation II.—A trial of more persons than one held in the absence of the accused who has absconded or who fails to comply with a proclamation issued under section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 shall be deemed to be a joint trial for the purpose of this section.
Co-accused confession only in a joint trial for the same offence
Earlier law: IEA 30. Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.
Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.
Illustration.
Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a conspiracy to wage war against the State.
Exception: acts and statements of conspirators
Earlier law: IEA 10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.
Earlier law: Section 43, Evidence Act
Example
Illustration (b) to Section 37 of the BSA: A prosecutes B for stealing a cow, and B is convicted. A afterwards sues C, to whom B sold the cow before the conviction. As between A and C, the judgment against B is irrelevant.
For the exam
- Meaning: dealings between others should not prejudice a stranger to them.
- Reflected in Section 37 BSA (earlier Section 43): judgments inter partes irrelevant to strangers.
- Judgments in rem under Section 35 BSA are an exception and bind everyone.
- Co-accused's confession usable only in a joint trial for the same offence (Section 24 BSA).
- In contract, the maxim supports the doctrine of privity.
Related terms
- EvidenceUnder Section 2(1)(e) of the BSA, statements of witnesses before the Court, including those given electronically (oral evidence), and documents, including digital records, produced for its inspection (documentary evidence).
- Facts in issueFacts from which, alone or with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of a right, liability or disability asserted or denied in a suit or proceeding necessarily follows (Section 2(1)(g) of the BSA).
- Res judicataA matter directly and substantially in issue that a competent court has heard and finally decided between the same parties cannot be tried again in a later suit (Section 11, CPC).
- Res gestaeFacts, including statements, so connected with a fact in issue or relevant fact as to form part of the same transaction are relevant, whether at the same time and place or not (Section 4, BSA).
- JudgmentUnder Section 2(9) of the CPC, the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order.
Further reading
Checked 12 November 2026. Statutory text is quoted from the Bare Acts library, taken from India Code. See the full glossary.