Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"(8) The king, according to the maxim of English law, can do no wrong. No action can be brought against him, nor indeed against a foreign sovereign, as such, or his ambassador. Certain high officials are exempted from responsibility for the acts of their subordinates, and various public functionaries are relieved from liability by the Statutes of Limitation at an earlier date tan other people". The king or the high officials mentioned in this illustration have a legal status, as they have peculiarity of personality as in the case of a minor which exists independently of any particular right which they claim and which they can enforce against the persons of incidence. It is in this sense that "official position" or "office" has been used in the said 8th variety and as seen earlier, managing directorship cannot fall within it. On the general test mentioned above, it is clear that when rights were claimed under a contract the same would not amount to "legal character" under Section 42 as held in some of he cases I have referred to above. Nor is the question whether the judgment in a particular case would amount to a judgment in rem a test of 'legal character' as argued by Mr. Munshi, because the division of legal rights into rights in rem and rights in personam is of no relevance in judging legal status or legal character. Indeed, Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act itself states that the declaration under Chapter VI of that Act, i.e. under Section 4, would be biding only on the parties to the suit and those claiming through them, which means that it is not a judgment in rem. Nor is the ownership of any property or the absence of it any criterion for judging legal character. It is the peculiarity of the personality of the person of inherence which is the determining factor of legal character and ownership of property or the absence of it is of no relevance.