SANKARAN GOVINDAN V. LAKSHMI BHARATHI AND ORS INSC 95; AIR 1974 SC 1764; 1975 SCR 57; 1975 SCC 351

CASE BRIEFS CASE NAME Sankaran Govindan Vs Lakshmi Bharathi and Ors. FACTS The late Dr Krishnan had two brothers Padmanabhan and Govindan, (the first defendant) and his sister the second defendant who has made the current appeal. The plaintiffs are the second defendant’s daughter and grandchildren. Krishnan had settled in the UK and was a medical practitioner. He owned one property and multiple other movable properties. Shortly before Krishnan’s death the first defendant had pursued his studies in England and was supposed to return but returned without Krishnan. After Krishnan’s death, The High Court of Judicature in England named Mr. Cyrin Lawlin Arksey and Miss Mary Woodliff as administrators of his estate and were impleaded by present respondents or original petitioners. Arksey and Woodliff then filed a suit in England to decide the question of whether Krishnan was domiciled in England. It was decided that he died domiciled in England and the first and second Appellant/ defendants were given the money from the sold properties of Krishnan. The first and second defendants contended that as Krishnan was domiciled in the UK the laws of England would apply. However, the plaintiff/current respondents opined that he was not domiciled in England and the Indian laws would apply. The trial court upheld this argument. The High court held that the deceased was not domiciled in England and that ex. 56 was obtained by fraud. The high court further held that the movables should be distributed by Indian Laws, but the house should be ruled by the law of situs that is English laws. ISSUES The first issue is whether the order passed in the UK operates as res judicata on the question of the domicile of Krishnan, The second question is whether there was sufficient evidence to show that Krishnan died domiciled in England HOLDING It is held that the Court in England cannot be said to have made a fraudulent judgment. This court also ruled that Dr Krishnan was domiciled in England as he showed no intent to return to India. Based on both these opinions It was decided that the inheritance of his property shall be distributed according to English Laws. RATIONALE It is established in private international law that if a foreign judgment is obtained by fraud, it is not res judicata. As regards the question of the fraudulent order this court reasons that the evidence reviewed by this court was affidavits submitted by many individuals that he was close to in England and included the affidavit and oral examination of Miss Hepworth with whom Dr Krishnan was living with, at the time of his death who had nothing to gain in making false statements. Multiple international case laws were brought in to show that while a foreign matter can be made res judicata on fraud what kind of fraud is sufficient. New Evidence used to prove fraud in the form of letters to his family in India that he would return home was held as insufficient evidence of his intent to return home as he mentioned his return only in conjunction with his requests for income from their family properties. He has repeatedly told Miss Hepworth that he never wants to return to India even for a vacation. After he purchased a house Dr Krishnan no longer intended to return to India and therefore was domiciled in England.