§ SECTION 36 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER II — RELEVANCY OF FACTS

Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 35

The mirror of § 35: a judgment on a matter of a public nature is relevant to a later inquiry — but, unlike an in rem judgment, it is not conclusive proof of what it states.

How to read Section 36

Relevant — but never the last word.

Which judgments

Any judgment, order or decree other than the in rem ones of § 35.

When relevant

If it relates to a matter of a public nature relevant to the enquiry.

The limit

It is not conclusive proof of what it states — the Court still weighs it.

The bare Act

The section in its own words — colour-keyed by what each phrase does.

Section 36 · verbatim

Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 35 are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state.

Illustration

A sues B for trespass on his land. B alleges the existence of a public right of way over the land, which A denies. The existence of a decree in favour of the defendant, in a suit by A against C for a trespass on the same land, in which C alleged the existence of the same right of way, is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of way exists.

In short: where a matter is of public concern — a public right of way, a public custom — an earlier judgment on it can be looked at in a later case. But because such matters are not decided in rem, that earlier judgment does not bind; it is evidence to be weighed, not conclusive proof.

→ This carries forward IEA 1872 § 42 — the counterpart to the conclusive in rem rule in § 35.

Glossary

other than section 35

Any judgment that is not a probate / matrimonial / admiralty / insolvency in rem judgment.

matter of a public nature

Something of general/public concern — a public right of way, a public custom — not a purely private fact.

relevant to the enquiry

The public matter the judgment decided must actually bear on the present case.

not conclusive proof

The judgment may be looked at and weighed, but it can be contradicted — it does not bind.

public right of way

The illustration’s example — a right the public has to pass over land; a classic public-nature matter.

rebuttable

Open to being disproved — the hallmark that separates § 36 from the conclusive § 35.

The picture

§ 35 vs § 36 — conclusive, or merely relevant.

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

The ruleRelevant, not conclusive

the rulePublic-nature judgments — helpful, not final

In one lineA judgment (not one of § 35’s in-rem kinds) is relevant if it relates to a matter of a public nature bearing on the inquiry — but it is not conclusive proof of what it states.

Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 35not the § 35 in-rem onesdecisions that are not the probate / matrimonial / admiralty / insolvency in rem judgments of § 35…

are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry;relevant IF a public-nature matter…are relevant only if they concern a matter of a public nature that bears on the inquiry…

but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state.⚠ but NOT conclusive…but they are not conclusive proof of what they state — the Court still weighs them.

ExampleIn a boundary or public-way dispute, an earlier decree that decided a public right of way existed is relevant — the Court reads it — but it does not conclusively settle the point; the present Court weighs it with the rest of the evidence.

✗ Not thisTwo limits. It must concern a public-nature matter (a public right of way, a public custom) — a purely private judgment between strangers is not made relevant by this section. And it is never conclusive — the exact opposite of § 35, where an in rem judgment IS conclusive proof.

relevant, not conclusiveThe Act’s own illustration

In one lineA judgment about a public right (like a public way) is relevant in a later case — but it only helps; it does not settle the matter.

A sues B for trespass; B alleges a public right of way; a decree in an earlier suit (A v C, same land, same right of way) existsthe earlier decreea prior decree on that same public right of way is put in…

it is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of way exists⚠ not conclusive…it is relevant — the Court reads it — but it does not conclusively prove the way exists; the Court still decides.

ExampleSo the earlier A v C decree comes in and carries weight, but B must still satisfy the Court, on all the evidence, that the public way truly exists.

✗ Not thisThis is the mirror of § 35. A public-nature judgment here is relevant but rebuttable; an in-rem judgment there (probate, marriage, ships, insolvency) is conclusive. Never treat a § 36 judgment as binding proof.

Connected provisions

§ 35

IEA 1872, § 42

Carried forward — the counterpart to the conclusive in rem rule of § 35.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 36: Judgments on public-nature matters (relevant, not conclusive)