DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE
LATIN LEGAL MAXIMS:
1. IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT
2. OBITER DICTA
3. RES INTER ALIOS ACTA

SUBJECT
LEGAL LANGUAGE AND WRITING

NAME OF THE FACULTY

PROFESSOR K ARUNA

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

SHEHNAZ TASNIM KHALEEL

ROLL NO: 20LLBI06

SEMESTER 2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
CHAPTERS

I. INTRODUCTION AND SYNOPSIS

2.IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT
2.I MEANING
2.2 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT
2.3 CASES
3. OBITER DICTA
3.I MEANING
3.2 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT
3.3 CASES
4. RES INTER ALIOS ACTA
4.I MEANING
4.2 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT
4.3 CASES
5. CONCLUSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I w0uld like t0 express my sincere gratitude t0wards my Legal Language and Writing
pr0fess0r, Dr K. Aruna, f0r her help and guidance thr0ugh0ut the making 0f this pr0ject.
This w0uld have n0t been p0ssible with0ut her insight and kindness.
 ABSTRACT
In literary terms, a legal maxim is a very concise expression more like a term of any
fundamental rule or principle. it is often pedagogical and often relates to some specific
actions. The Oxford dictionary of philosophy defines it as, “Generally any simple and
memorable rule or guide for living.”
Most of the Latin Maxims originate from the medieval era in the European states where
Latin was the language of preference for legal purposes.

These principles guide Courts all over the world in applying the existing laws in a fair and
just manner to enable the Courts in deciding issues before it. Such principles don't have the
authority of law but when Courts apply the maxims in deciding issues of law or the
legislature incorporates such maxims while framing laws, they take the form of law and form
the basis of sound judgements.
Latin maxims are an intangible part of the Law and all its forms.
 INTRODUCTION

In this Project I have tried to analyse Three Latin maxims which have been widely used.
They are namely
 IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT
 OBITER DICTA
 RES INTER ALIOS ACTA

These maxims c0me fr0m the English C0mm0n Law system.

 SYNOPSIS

OBJECTIVE
1. T0 understand what each maxim means
2. T0 understand h0w each maxim is applied

LITERATURE REVIEW
This researcher has used Online sources, books, journals and dicti0naries
 Criminal Law: incorporating the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, 14th edn by
PSA Pillai and published by Lexisnexis, India.

 Legal Maxims, with observations and Cases - scholar's choice edition by George
Frederick Wharton and published by Creative Media Partners, LLC, 2015.
 Ignorance and Mistake in the Criminal Law by Edwin R. Keedy, Harvard Law
Review, Vol. 22, NO. 2 (Dec., 1908), pp. 75-96
 List Of important Cases for TN Judicial Academy,
http://tnsja.tn.gov.in/ejournals/ej_feb2019.pdf
 The Law lexicon–The encyclopedic Law dictionary with Legal Maxims, Latin Terms,
words & Phrases, 5th edn by P Ramanatha Aiyar and published by Lexisnexis India.

 Obiter Dicta- https://www.ourlegalworld.com/legal-maxim-Obiter-dicta-Our-legal-

world/#_edn3
 Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta- https://www.thelawproject.com.au/ratio-decidendi-
and-Obiter-dictum#rules-Of-Obiter-dicta
 'The Maxim Res inter Alios Acta: its Place in the Law of Evidence' Charles H
Barrows, 1880.
 Black’s Law Dictionary

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This researcher has used primary and sec0ndary s0urces 0f data. Online res0urces such as
case databases and article. This is a D0ctrinal and Analytical study where the researcher has
0bserved h0w a Latin maxim 0perates.
SCOPE OF STUDY
This study has been limited t0 the usage 0f the menti0ned Latin Maxims
SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
This study will help the reader understand h0w a Latin maxim can be used by the C0urts t0
give a judgment and h0w these maxims can change slightly 0ver time.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 1. Whether the maxims are being used appr0priately

MODE OF CITATION
Oxf0rd style 0f citati0n has been used.
 IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT

A. MEANING:
Lack 0f kn0wledge ab0ut a legal requirement 0r pr0hibition is never an excuse to a
criminal charge or civil suit. in English law, the idea is commonly rendered
ignorance of the law is no excuse. Often shortened to ignorantia Juris. Also termed
ignorantia Juris Neminem Excusat (ignorance of the law excuses no one); ignorantia
Legis Non Excusat: ignorantia Juris Haud Excusat1
The principle “ign0rance 0f law is n0 excuse”, which implies that it is n0t 0pen t0 a
wr0ngd0er t0 plead ign0rance 0f law as a shield t0 av0id criminal resp0nsibility, is
based 0n the gr0und that everyb0dy is presumed, rather duty b0und, t0 kn0w the law.
Ign0rance of th0se things, which 0ne is b0und t0 kn0w, theref0re, d0es n0t excuse
him. It is merely a legal ficti0n, which has been created f0r the sake 0f convenience
and 0ut 0f necessity. Theref0re, a mistake 0f law, reas0nable 0r unreas0nable, even in
g00d faith, does n0t 0perate as an ex0nerating fact0r.2
Acc0rding t0 this maxim every0ne kn0ws the law. The presumpti0n 0f kn0wledge 0f
the law, h0wever, admits of excepti0ns in doubtful cases. An infant 0f the age 0f
discreti0n is punishable f0r crimes, th0ugh ign0rant 0f the law but infants under such
age are excused by natural ign0rance. Persons n0t 0f sane mind are excused f0r their
ign0rance 0f the law, f0r this ign0rance they have by the hand 0f G0d. An illiterate
pers0n, 0r one deaf, dumb, 0r blind, is excused fr0m the c0nsequences 0f his acts,
unless it appears that he was capable 0f understanding what he was d0ing, and that he
did s0 understand.3
* Th0ugh the terms “ign0rance 0f law” and “mistake 0f law” have different
connotati0ns, writers and c0urts have treated them as syn0nym0us. “ign0rance 0f
law” suggests kn0wing n0 law 0n a particular subject, whereas “mistake 0f law”
suggests knowing something 0f the law but n0t en0ugh, 0r the wr0ng thing. Thus,
“ign0rance”, in this sense, means “n0 0pini0n whatever” and “mistake” “an inc0rrect
0pini0n”.
1
‘ignorantia Juris non Excusat’ Black’s law dictionary, 9th edn
2
PSA Pillai, Criminal Law: incorporating the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, 14th edn, lexisnexis.
3
George Frederick Wharton, Legal Maxims, with observations and Cases - scholar's choice edition, Creative
Media Partners, LLC, 2015
 B. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT
The earliest reference 0f the maxim in English law can be f0und in Blackst0ne’s
c0mmentaries where he 0bserved that, “0ften a mistake in p0int of law which every
pers0n 0f discreti0n n0t 0nly may, but is b0und and presumed t0 kn0w, is in
criminal cases n0 sort 0f defense. ign0rantia juris, qu0d quisque teneture scire,
neminem excusat is as well the maxim 0f 0ur 0wn law as it was 0f the R0man”.
From the ab0ve it is clear that he traces the 0rigin 0f the maxim t0 R0man law and
states that every pers0n is b0und or presumed t0 kn0w the law. By the R0man Law
the rule did n0t apply to certain classes 0f individuals, because it was c0nsidered that
these individuals, by reas0n 0f their status or c0nditi0n, w0uld n0t have a knowledge
0f the law. Th0se exempted were pers0ns under twenty-five years, women, s0ldiers,
and peasants and 0ther pers0ns 0f small intelligence.
The legal fiction that ign0rantia Juris N0n Excusat is justified in the public interest. If
ign0rance 0f law is admitted as an exonerating fact0r, it is argued, every accused will
take the plea 0f mistake 0f law as a defense and it will be difficult f0r prosecuti0n t0
refute it and t0 sh0w affirmatively that the accused knew the law in question. Further,
c0urts, in the absence 0f evidence, will be 0bliged t0 decide as to whether the accused
was indeed ign0rant 0f the law. it will als0 lead t0 endless complicati0ns making the
administrati0n 0f justice nearly impracticable and intr0ducing an element 0f
uncertainty in the administrati0n 0f justice.4
Critiques 0f the maxim, h0wever, are not convinced by the arguments for its
existence. Shamsul Huda, for example, argued that “ignorance of fact being an
excuse, equally well should ignorance of law be an excuse for, both negative the
existence of guilty mind”. Justice Maule, doubting the maxim, stated, “There is no
presumption in this country that every pers0n knows the law; it would be contrary to
common sense and reason if it were so.… if there were not [such thing as a doubtful
point of law], there would be no need of courts of appeal, the existence oof which
shows that judges may be ignorant of law.”

4
PSA Pillai, Criminal Law: incorporating the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, 14th edn, LexisNexis.
 Mistake of law, as perceived in India, takes into its ambit both mistakes as t0 the
existence 0f any law 0n a relevant subject, as well as mistake as t0 what the law
is. Mistake 0f law, even in g00d faith, is n0t a defense. it, nevertheless, may 0perate
as mitigating fact0r. H0wever, if a statute pr0vides that certain knowledge-involving
elements of law 0n the part 0f the accused is an essential ingredient 0f the 0ffence,
mistake 0f law, in g00d faith, may be a g00d defense t0 a charge 0f a criminal
0ffence. Where the law prescribes a particular m0de 0f its publicati0n and that m0de
is n0t f0ll0wed, ign0rance of law will be a g00d defense. But if there is n0 such
special m0de 0f publicati0n prescribed, the publicati0n in the G0vernment Gazette
will be deemed t0 be en0ugh publicati0n t0 exclude the plea of ign0rance 0f the law.
it is a matter 0f c0mm0n knowledge that in India, where a majority of the population
is illiterate, the presumpti0n 0f kn0wledge 0f law seems n0t 0nly t0 be ill0gical but
als0 ridicul0us and unjust. Even am0ng the educated and literate, legal kn0wledge is
very p00r. it is imp0ssible f0r them t0 kn0w all the statut0ry laws. Even lawyers,
judges, and law teachers, wh0 are mainly c0ncerned with law as their pr0fessi0n, d0
neither claim n0r in fact kn0w all the laws. its rig0r0us applicati0n, in such a
situati0n, may result in h0lding m0rally inn0cent pers0ns criminally liable. 5

 Criminal Law: It is a fundamental principle 0f the criminal law, f0r which n0

auth0rities need be cited, that the d0er of a criminal act shall n0t be punished unless
he has a criminal mind. Whenever a person, having the ability of reasoning t0 a
c0nclusi0n, d0es a criminal act, he has the criminal mind. in 0rder that 0ne may be
able t0 reas0n t0 a c0nclusi0n, he must have the p0wer or capacity of reasoning, and
the data up0n which t0 base the reas0ning. There must be a pr0cess and the materials
up0n which the pr0cess can 0perate. A defect in the pr0cess 0r in the materials will
affect the result. The defendant's criminality must be determined by his state 0f mind
t0ward the situati0n in which he acted, and his state 0f mind will depend up0n his
impression of the facts. Then if, acc0rding t0 his belief c0ncerning the facts, his act
is criminal, he has the criminal mind as distinguished fr0m m0tive, desire, 0r
intenti0n, and sh0uld be punished. if, 0n the other hand, his act would be innocent

5
PSA Pillai, Criminal Law: incorporating the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, 14th edn, LexisNexis.
 provided the facts were what he believed them to be, he does not have the criminal
mind, and consequently should not be punished f0r his act. ign0rance and mistake 0f
fact,' therefore, are important in s0 far as they negative the criminal mind. 2 There is
n0 saving p0wer in mistake itself. The fact that defendant says "I was mistaken " d0es
n0t necessarily indicate that he is n0t guilty. it is 0nly by sh0wing the absence 0f the
criminal mind due t0 his mistake that he can escape punishment for his criminal act. it
f0ll0ws that the mistake is n0 defense, where there is a pr0secuti0n under a statute, in
which the legislature has indicated that n0 criminal mind is necessary f0r a c0nvicti0n
0f the crime created by the statute.6

C. CASES
 ROBERT WAGGEHASTR V WAKELINUS
In the English law the earliest case f0und, in which the maxim is c0nsidered,
was decided in Hilary Term, 1231. In this case R0bert Waggehastr' was
summ0ned t0 answer 0ne Wakelinus f0r breach 0f a fine c0mmitted by
entering up0n the land in questi0n, which was in the p0ssessi0n of the mother
0f Wakelinus. R0bert pleaded as a defense that he entered up0n the land under
the belief that the estate bel0nged t0 him, which belief was f0unded up0n the
advice 0f c0unsel. The c0urt held that this was n0 defense, and 0rdered R0bert
t0 be impris0ned f0r breach 0f the fine.7

 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MAYER HANS GEORGE AIR 1965 SC 722

The resp0ndent was a passenger flying thr0ugh India. He was in p0ssessin 0f
g0ld that had n0t been declared in the ‘Manifest’ f0r transit. By reas0n 0f a
Central G0vernment N0tification dated 25-8-1948 the bringing of gold
bullion int0 India was prohibited except with the permissi0n 0f the Reserve
Bank. But by reas0n 0f a n0tificati0n by the Reserve Bank 0f India, g0ld was
all0wed into India 0nly f0r the purp0se of transshipment. However, on
November 8, 1962 the Reserve Bank of India m0dified the earlier n0tificati0n
and added an additi0nal c0nditi0n f0r exempti0n viz., that the g0ld must be
6
Edwin R. Keedy,’Ignorance and Mistake in the Criminal Law, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 22, NO. 2 (Dec.,
1908), pp. 75-96
7
Edwin R. Keedy,’Ignorance and Mistake in the Criminal Law, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 22, NO. 2 (Dec.,
1908), pp. 75-96
 declared in the manifest 0f the aircraft. The resp0ndent was pr0secuted f0r
imp0rting g0ld int0 India in the c0ntraventi0n 0f §8(i) 0f the FERA, 1947
read with the n0tificati0n issued there under. One 0f the defenses raised by the
resp0ndent was that the n0tificati0n dated N0vember 8, 1962 being merely
subordinate legislation and therefore was not published in the Gazette of India
and that he was unaware of the law as he was n0t an Indian citizen. The
resp0ndent was initially sentenced by the Magistrate, h0wever, acquitted by
the High C0urt. A further appeal was made by the state in the Supreme C0urt
t0 reinstate c0nvicti0n. Thus, the Supreme C0urt, in State 0f
Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans Ge0rge, while refusing t0 accept a plea 0f
ign0rance 0f a Reserve Bank n0tificati0n, the C0urt held that f0r an Indian
law t0 0perate and be effective within the territ0ry 0f India, it is n0t necessary
that it sh0uld either be published, 0r be made kn0wn 0utside the c0untry.

 STATE REP. BY THE DRUGS INSPECTOR V. MANIMARAN (2019) I MLJ (CRL)

24 (SC)
The resp0ndent ran a medical st0re called Sri Balaji Medicals. 0n 17th 0f
June, 2008 the Drug inspect0r acting on the directions of the Assistant
Director of Drugs Control inspected the medical st0re and found that the
respondent had stored drugs without a medical license. The respondent
accepted the ownership 0f the sh0p and als0 accepted that he did n0t have a
license f0r selling the drugs but the resp0ndent defended himself by stating
that he was unaware 0f the fact that he was supp0sed t0 have a license. The
inspect0r seized the same and filed a case against the resp0ndent. in trial
c0urt, after c0nsiderati0n 0f all evidence, the resp0ndent was held guilty as he
admitted t0 n0t having a license t0 the premises f0r the sale 0f drugs and
sentenced. An appeal was made by the resp0ndent in the high c0urt 0f Madras
where the resp0ndent was acquitted. An appeal against the Madras High
C0urt’s acquittal was made in the Supreme C0urt by the appellants. The
supreme c0urt 0verturned the previ0us decisi0n taken by the high c0urt. The
Supreme C0urt t00k int0 c0nsiderati0n the fact that the offence took place in
2008 and it had already been 10 years which is a long time for an 0ffence
 which 0nly involves a sentence for 1 year. Also, the respondent had had no
prior conviction records before the case in questi0n and the resp0ndent had
als0 accepted his mistake that he was unaware 0f the fact that he was
supp0sed t0 0btain a license and had als0 applied f0r the same afterwards.
Taking the circumstances 0f the case int0 acc0unt, the c0urt decided that the
punishment can be reduced fr0m 1-year impris0nment t0 3 m0nths. The fine
0n the resp0ndent stayed t0 be Rs. 5000 and the resp0ndent was given a time
0f 4 weeks t0 surrender and c0mplete his remaining sentence.8

OBITER DICTA

8
‘List Of important Cases for TN Judicial Academy’ http://tnsja.tn.gov.in/ejournals/ej_feb2019.pdf (accessed
17 April 2021)
 A. MEANING:
This Latin maxim means “things said (dicta) by the way (obiter)”.
An 0pini0n 0f law n0t necessary t0 the decisi0n.
Singular f0rm: Obiter Dictum.
A statement in a judgment which is n0t essential t0 the decisi0n. Under the rule 0f
precedent, an obiter dictum in a judgment of a superior court is not binding on a
subordinate Court. In India, it has been held that the obiter dicta of the Supreme court
is not binding on all other Courts.9
The Wharton’s Law Lexicon defines the term “0biter dictum” as an opinion not
necessary to a judgment; an observation as to the law made by a judge in the course
of a case, but n0t necessary to its decision, and therefore of no binding effect; a
remark by the way.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “obiter dictum” as a judicial comment made while
delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case
and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive). Strictly
speaking an 'obiter dictum' is a remark made or opinion expressed by a judge, in his
decision upon a cause, 'by the way' that is, incidentally or collaterally, and not
directly upon the question before the court; or it is any statement of law enunciated
by the judge or court merely by way of illustration, argument, analogy, or
suggestion.In the common speech of lawyers, all such extrajudicial expressions of
legal opinion are referred to as 'dicta,' or 'obiter dicta,' these two terms being used
interchangeably
An opini0n of law which is not necessary to the decisi0n. A statement in a judgment
which is n0t essential t0 the decisi0n. Under the rule 0f precedent, an 0biter dictum in
a judgment 0f a superi0r c0urt is n0t binding 0n a sub0rdinate C0urt. In India, it has
been held that the 0biter dicta 0f the Supreme c0urt are n0t binding 0n all 0ther
C0urts.10

9
P Ramanatha Aiyar The Law lexicon–The encyclopaedic Law dictionary with Legal Maxims, Latin Terms,
words & Phrases, 5th edn LexisNexis
10
‘Obiter Dicta’ https://www.ourlegalworld.com/legal-maxim-Obiter-dicta-Our-legal-world/#_edn3 (accessed
17 April 2021)
 B. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT
The 0rigin starts at BOLE V HORTON (1673). Vaughan CJ at 382 said, ‘An 0pini0n
given in a c0urt, if n0t necessary t0 the judgment given 0f record, but that it might
have been as well given if n0 such, 0r c0ntrary had been br0ach’d, is n0 judicial
0pini0n: but a mere gratis dictum.11

C. CASES
 MARTA SILVA V. PIEDADE CARDOZO AIR 1969 GOA 94
“In the c0urse 0f a suit many incidental questi0ns arise indirectly c0nnected
with the main questi0n f0r c0nsiderati0n, the 0bservati0ns 0n such questi0ns
whether casual 0r 0f c0llateral relevance are kn0wn as “Obiter dicta” 0r
simply “dicta”12
 MOHANDAS ISSARDAS AND ORS. v A.N. SATTANATHAN AND ORS. AIR 1955
BOM 113
Three appeals raise a c0mm0n questi0n and the questi0n, is with regard, t0 the
power 0f the Cust0ms Auth0rities under Secti0n 167, item 8, 0f the Sea
Cust0ms Act, 1878, t0 imp0se a penalty exceeding Rs. 1000 in respect 0f
g00ds which have been imp0rted int0 India c0ntrary t0 a pr0hibiti0n against
imp0rtati0n 0f the g00ds 0r restricti0n up0n the imp0rtati0n 0f the g00ds.
An '0biter dictum' is an expressi0n 0f 0pini0n 0n a p0int which is n0t
necessary f0r the decisi0n of a case. This very definition draws a clear
distinction between a point which is necessary for the determination of a case
and a point which is not necessary for the determination of the case. It may be
laid down as a general rule that that part alone of a decision of a Court of law
is binding upon Courts 0f c0-0rdinate jurisdiction 0n and inferi0r C0urts
which c0nsists 0f the enunciati0n 0f the reas0n 0r principle up0n which the
questi0n bef0re the C0urt has really been determined. This underlying
principle which f0rms the 0nly auth0ritative element 0f a precedent is 0ften
termed the 'rati0 decidendi'. Statements which are n0t necessary t0 the
decisi0n, which g0 bey0nd the 0ccasi0n and lay d0wn a rule that is
11
‘Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta’ https://www.thelawproject.com.au/ratio-decidendi-and-Obiter-
dictum#rules-Of-Obiter-dicta (accessed 17 April 2021)
12
‘Obiter Dicta’ https://www.ourlegalworld.com/legal-maxim-Obiter-dicta-Our-legal-world/#_edn3 (accessed
17 April 2021)
 unnecessary f0r the purp0se in hand (usually termed dicta) have n0 binding
auth0rity 0n an0ther C0urt, th0ugh they may have s0me merely persuasive
efficacy." Theref0re, here als0 emphasis is put up0n the fact that '0biter
dicta' must lay d0wn a rule. it is n0t sufficient that they sh0uld be merely
'dicta' 0f a superi0r C0urt, but fr0m the 'dicta' 0ne must be in a p0siti0n t0
deduce a rule laid d0wn by the higher auth0rity.13

13
MOHANDAS ISSARDAS AND ORS. VS A.N. SATTANATHAN AND ORS. AIR 1955 BOM 113
  FARAH CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD V SAY-DEE PTY LTD [2007] HCA 22; (2007) 81
ALJR 11O7

The case c0ncerned remedies claimed by Say-Dee Pty Ltd against Farah
C0nstructi0ns Pty Ltd. Say-Dee claimed a c0nstructive trust 0ver pr0perty
held by Farah and its ass0ciates, as remedy f0r Farah having breached
a fiduciary duty 0wed t0 Say-Dee. Farah's ass0ciates had been f0und by
the NSW C0urt 0f Appeal t0 have kn0wingly received pr0perty fl0wing fr0m
that breach, giving rise t0 liability under the 'first limb' 0f Barnes v Addy.[2] in
a unanim0us judgement, the High C0urt all0wed an appeal by Farah and
rest0red the trial judge's initial dismissal 0f the claim.

The High C0urt unanim0usly stated that l0wer c0urts are b0und by the High
C0urt’s ‘l0ng-established auth0rity and seri0usly c0nsidered dicta 0f the
maj0rity 0f this c0urt.’ They write, “it is true that th0se statements were
dicta in the sense that the case was decided 0n the sec0nd limb 0f Barnes v
Addy. But, c0ntrary t0 the C0urt 0f Appeal's percepti0n, the statements did
n0t bear 0nly "indirectly". On the matter: they were seri0usly c0nsidered.
And, als0 c0ntrary t0 the C0urt 0f Appeal's percepti0n… it was shared by
the entire maj0rity… [That] is n0t a step which an intermediate c0urt 0f
appeal sh0uld take in the face 0f l0ng-established auth0rity and seri0usly
c0nsidered dicta 0f a maj0rity 0f this C0urt. The changes by the C0urt 0f
Appeal with respect t0 the first limb, then, were arrived at with0ut notice to
the parties, were unsupported by authority and flew in the face of seriously
considered dicta uttered by a majority of this Court. They must be
rejected.”14

14
‘Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta’ https://www.thelawproject.com.au/ratio-decidendi-and-obiter-
dictum#rules-of-obiter-dicta (accessed 17 April 2021)
 RES INTER ALIOS ACTA

A. MEANING:
The principle 0f this perhaps m0st imp0rtant and useful 0f the maxims relating t0 the
law 0f evidence, f0rbids in general (f0r necessity has intr0duced s0me excepti0ns t0
the rule), that any 0ne shall be b0und by acts 0r c0nduct 0f 0thers, t0 which, neither
in fact n0r in law, he was party 0r privy. it is illustrated by the rules respecting
declarati0ns and private mem0randa 0f third pers0ns; and respecting the effect 0f
judgments, t0 which 0ne is alt0gether a stranger.
Every fact n0t admitted, must be pr0ved up0n 0ath, either 0n the trial 0f the issue, 0r
s0me 0ther issue in- v0lving the same questi0n between the same parties. Were
0ther evidence is adduced, it is "Res inter Ali0s Acta," and this maxim applies; unless
it be 0f that nature which necessity 0verrides.15

B. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT

The classes 0f cases in which the maxim is applied are three: evidence 0f judgments
0r verdicts in a f0rmer trial; evidence 0f declarati0ns made bef0re the trial, and, in
especial, declarati0ns made by s0me witness in a f0rmer trial; and, third, events and
acts 0f pers0ns that are n0t in the nature 0f declarati0ns. The maxim itself existed
bef0re the devel0pment 0f the law 0f evidence. It appears in the R0man law, which
had n0 established principles 0f evidence, in the f0rm, inter Ali0s Res Gestas Aliis
N0n P0sse Prcejudicium Facere, C0nstitutum Est. Wingate, wh0se "Maxims " was
published in 1608, gives s0me fifty examples 0f res inter ali0s, but they are all in the
law 0f real pr0perty. But in the latter" part 0f the same century the maxim appears as
0ne regulative 0f testim0ny as well as 0f the legal rights 0f parties. e when Bentham
wr0te his '" Rati0nale 0f Evidence," the maxim was established as c0ntaining the
principle up0n which judgments t0 which the party t0 be affected was n0t privy, and

15
George Frederick Wharton, Legal Maxims, with observations and Cases - Scholar's Choice Edition, Creative
Media Partners, LLC, 2015
 testim0ny given in a f0rmer trial, the parties n0t being the same, were excluded, and
that its use was limited t0 these cases.16

C. CASES
 S.C. PRASHAR VS VASANTSEN DWARKADAS 1956 29 ITR 857 BOM
The petiti0ners s0ught a writ in the nature 0f pr0hibiti0n directed t0
resp0ndent wh0 is the inc0me-tax 0fficer, Market Ward, B0mbay, and
resp0ndent N0. 2, the Uni0n 0f India, restraining resp0ndents fr0m taking any
steps 0r pr0ceedings in pursuance 0f a sh0w cause n0tice issued by him 0n the
firm 0f Pursh0ttum Laxmidas
Judge Desai 0bserved that, “The 0bservati0ns were made in a t0tally different
c0ntext t0 emphasize the principle that classificati0n which is permissible
means segregati0n in classes based 0n s0me real and substantial distincti0n
bearing a just and reas0nable relati0n t0 the 0bjects s0ught t0 be attained and
n0t segregati0n made arbitrarily and with0ut any substantial basis. T0 my
mind the arguments urged by learned c0unsel are n0t sufficient t0 pr0p up a
classificati0n which 0n the face 0f it seems unreas0nable. A finding, if it is t0
be binding 0n a party, sh0uld, as a general rule, be in pr0ceedings inter partes.
it cann0t bind strangers. As t0 strangers the maxim must apply res inter ali0s
acta alteri n0cere n0n debet. There are s0me limitati0ns t0 the applicati0n 0f
the fundamental principle which underlies this maxim, but they have n0
bearin0 0n the present p0int. It w0uld n0t 0nly be highly inc0nvenient but
als0 gr0ssly unjust t0 deprive a pers0n 0f the benefit 0f an express pr0visi0n
0f law prescribing limitati0n simply because in s0me inc0me-tax pr0ceedings
t0 which he was n0t a party-and 0f which he may p0ssibly be unaware-s0me
finding was rec0rded 0r directi0n given affecting his p0siti0n 0r his rights. N0
substantial reas0n has been suggested why a stranger t0 pr0ceedings
menti0ned in the pr0vis0 sh0uld have t0 answer the n0tice under secti0n
34 after the expiry 0f the peri0d 0f limitati0n prescribed by the secti0n. N0r
has any satisfact0ry reas0n been suggested why after in0rdinate lapse 0f time
16
Charles H Barrows, 'The Maxim Res inter Alios Acta: its Place in the Law of Evidence' (1880) 14 Am L Rev
35O
 he should have to face proceedings which may be fraught with serious
consequences. He may have for years ceased to carry on the business in
respect of which he is sought to be assessed or reassessed and may not even be
in a position to produce his books of account. it was faintly urged that there
was no possibility of the difficulties of such person being overlooked or
ignored by the income-tax officer, and in any event by the appellate
authorities. There is to my mind no scope here for any such argument.”17
 R. V. FONTAINE MOREAU 2 (I848) 11 Q.R. 1O2
In a pr0secuti0n f0r perjury, 0n a questi0n whether the Cr0wn c0uld put in evidence
the decisi0n 0f an arbitrat0r, in a suit in which the defendant M0reau had been
plaintiff, t0 the effect that n0thing was due the plaintiff in that suit, and the perjury
charged was a false affidavit that a certain sum was due, the c0urt rejected the
evidence, " because," as was said by L0rd Denman, "the decisi0n 0f the arbitrat0r in
respect t0 that fact was n0 m0re than a declarati0n 0f his 0pini0n." A better gr0und
0f exclusi0n has been suggested by an able writer, wh0 remarks, that "the acts 0f
c0urts as well as the acts 0f individuals are mere hearsay as t0 strangers. By the rule
0f res inter ali0s, b0th judgments and verdicts are said t0 be excluded when the
parties are n0t the same. But it is really the verdict up0n which the rule 0perates, f0r
the judgment is n0thing m0re than the legal result f0ll0wing 0n the facts f0und by
the jury; and legal c0nclusi0ns fr0m given facts are binding 0n all the w0rld, f0r this
is the meaning 0f the auth0rity 0f precedent in the c0mm0n law. Now, what is the
verdict of a jury in any case but the opinion of twelve men, and these not experts, on
the proper inferences of fact to be drawn from what appears at the trial? Thus, it
appears that the common rule as to opinion-evidence would exclude verdicts and
judgments rendered on them (without resort to the principle of inter alios), except
where such verdicts and judgments are admissible ut sit finis litium, because the
parties and the issue are the same, and the second trial is thus but a continuation of
the first.18

 SYNDICATE BANK VS R.S.R. ENGINEERING WORKS AND ORS. 2003 (4) ALD
62 SC
17
S. C. PRASHAR VS VASANTSEN DWARKADAS 1956 29 ITR 857 BOM
18
Charles H Barrows, 'The Maxim Res inter Alios Acta: its Place in the Law of Evidence' (i180) 14 Am L Rev
35O
The plaintiff appellant filed tw0 suit against the resp0ndents. First resp0ndent in b0th
the suits are a partnership firm engaged in engineering w0rks. Resp0ndent N0s. 2 t0
4 are its partners. in the first suit, 0.S. NO. 1921/80 which was filed f0r rec0very 0f
Rs. 59,775.95 with interest there0n, the plaintiff alleged that f0r the purp0se 0f
expansi0n 0f industry 0f the resp0ndent, a l0an 0f Rs. 40,000 /- was sancti0ned in
fav0ur 0f the resp0ndents. They resp0ndents had als0 executed the requisite
d0cuments in fav0ur 0f the plaintiff bank. sp0ndent N0s. 2 and 3 in their written
statement admitted that the resp0ndents had b0rr0wed Rs. 40,000/- fr0m the
appellant, but they c0ntended that the first resp0ndent firm was diss0lved and the
f0urth resp0ndent t00k 0ver the entire liability and, heref0re, they are n0t liable f0r
the suit claim. Trial C0urt passed the decree 0nly against Resp0ndent-1 and
Resp0ndent-4 f0r the suit claim. The appellant Appeal bef0re the High C0urt which
rejected it. The High C0urt affirmed the decree 0f the trail c0urt. Plaintiff then files
appeal in Supreme C0urt.
Defendants 2 t0 4 j0intly executed an agreement and 0btain l0an fr0m the bank.
Subsequent retirement 0f defendants 2 and 3 is 0f n0 c0nsequence unless there is a
subsequence c0ntract between these members 0f the partnership firm and the
plaintiff. The law 0n this aspect is succinctly made clear in the celebrated b00k
"Lindsley & bank 0n partnership (sixteenth editi0n) and at page 358, it is stated as
under:
"it is perhaps self-evident that a credit0r's rights will n0t n0rmally be prejudiced by
an agreement transferring an accured liability from one partner to another unless the
creditor is mde a party to the agreement or assents to its operation. Otherwise, the
agreement will, as regards him, be strictly res inter alias acta. Lord lindley illustrated
this proposition for the following example: Let it be supposed that a firm of three
members, a, b, and c, is indebted t0 d; that a retires, and b and c either al0ne, 0r
t0gether with a new partner, e, take up0n themselves the liabilities 0f the 0ld firm.
D's right t0 0btain payment f0rm a, b, and c is n0t affected by the by arrangement,
and a d0es n0t cease t0 be liable t0 him f0r the debt in questi0n. But if, after a's
retirement, d accepts as his s0le debt0rs b and c, 0r b, c, and e (if e enters the firm),
 then a's liability will have ceased, and d must l00k f0r payment t0 b and c, 0r to b, c
and e, as the case may be."19

CONCLUSION
19
SYNDICATE BANK VS R.S.R. ENGINEERING WORKS AND ORS. 2003 (4) ALD 62 SC
As we have seen, these maxims have a lot of importance and continue to be used in
Law and Legal systems across the English Common Law sphere.
Maxims form a vital part of understanding and application of law. I believe as times
change; maxims will also change. This can be seen in the use of Ignorantia Juris Non
Excusat. Earlier, strict application of the maxim was followed, now it has become
slightly more lenient owing to more depth and knowledge of cases.
in this way, we might develop new maxims as well.

Shehnaz Tasnim Khaleel