Say the ratio out loud before you open Reasoning — recalling it unprompted is exactly what the exam pays for.
Why it matters
One sentence from this case does more work in the module than almost any other: competence means competence in the international sense. It is quoted by the Supreme Court in Satya v. Teja Singh and it controls both s. 13(a) and the evidentiary provision on judgments as to status.
Facts
This course cites the case for the proposition quoted in Satya and does not set out its facts.
Held
The competence contemplated by s. 13 of the Code is competence in an international sense, and not merely by the law of the foreign State in which the court delivering the judgment functions.
Reasoning
Step one — separate two meanings of competence. A court may be perfectly competent by its own law and still not be a court that other systems will credit with jurisdiction over this defendant. The foreign State legislates for itself, not for the world.
Step two — supply the international test. For a judgment in personam there are two grounds and only two: the defendant's presence in the foreign country, or his voluntary submission to its jurisdiction.
Step three — apply the same test to judgments on status. A judgment in rem is accorded universal recognition because the court had power over the res; but that too presupposes competence, and it is measured internationally.
Exam use
It opens: What is meant by jurisdiction in the international sense? — with Sirdar Gurdyal Singh for the illustration and Lalji Raja for the correction of the nullity language.
Show it doing its second job, which is where students gain marks. In Satya v. Teja Singh the argument was that a decree of divorce, being a judgment on status, was a judgment in rem binding on all the world. The Court answered from the evidentiary provision: a final judgment of a competent court in the exercise of matrimonial jurisdiction is conclusive proof of the legal character it confers or takes away — and the words competent court are the control. Competence being competence in the international sense on this case, and the Evidence Act separately permitting any party to show that the judgment was delivered by an incompetent court or obtained by fraud or collusion, the conclusion followed: it is wrong to think that judgments in rem are inviolable.
Add the alignment made in Y. Narasimha Rao: a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 13(a) means the court that the law under which the parties married recognises as competent, and the same expression in the evidentiary provision is to be construed likewise.
Name the current statute. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; s. 41 corresponds to s. 35, which adds a reference to tribunals, and the old s. 44 to s. 36.
It does not decide what grounds of competence the international sense recognises; that is the work of the presence-and-submission cases.