In Personam: Origin, Meaning and Explanation

This article titled ‘In Personam: Origin, Meaning and Explanation’ is written by Sahajpreet Bhusari and discusses the legal phrase of In Personam.

I. Origin and Meaning

In Personam is a legal phrase of Latin origin. In Latin, the maxim literally means ‘against a particular person/individual’.[1]

II. Explanation and Application

A legal proceeding in personam is one that requires a clearly enforceable judgment against an individual. Such action may affect the rights and interests of the defendant. In a case against a particular person, that person must have a summons and a judgment is pronounced that only applies to that person and is known as an in personam judgment.

Full View

In personam proceedings is distinguished from in rem proceedings, where the latter refers not only to a person but to a whole. This legal distinction is important in deciding when a case should be initiated and how the defendant should be served. In general, in rem right is a right that can be opposed to the whole world (just like a property right) while a judgment in personam is binding only on the parties.

In personam claim only defines the rights between the respective parties to an action and does not affect the rights of any other third party. Therefore, an individual right can only be exercised against one disputing party. Any order issued by a judge for which the proportion of jurisdiction and jurisdiction in personam has not been duly granted is void or not legally binding.

III. Illustrations

Plaintiffs can sue the defendant personally for breach of contract. The complainant must determine that the court has both fundamental power over the respondent and material power to preside over the case to bring a case directly against the respondent. With respect to the in personam cases, the decision covers only the parties.

A personal right (in personam) is a right attached to a particular person, such as a right under a contract, tort against a defendant, or a license.

IV. Case Laws

In M.V. Elisabeth And Ors v. Harwan Investment and Trading[2], the Supreme Court ruled that a respondent in a personal admiralty class action is liable for the full sum of money brought by the plaintiff. Likewise, the respondent who admits service in rem is liable for full liability even if the amount of judgment exceeds the value of the res or period (bail) provided.

In R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-Ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid[3], the Supreme Court of India ruled that in an in personam case, the court has jurisdiction to order movable property when the parties submit it to the jurisdiction. A person who files a lawsuit in a foreign court and seeks an in personam judgment, after a judgment has been made against him, cannot say that the court does not have the jurisdiction to which he invokes and that the court present because it is expressly acknowledged that a party present inside or a party that has submitted to the tribunal cannot after questioning by the wards.

---

References

[1] In Personam, Available Here.

[2] 1993 AIR 1014.

[3] 1963 AIR 1 1963 SCR (3) 22.

---

1. Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary and Entrance Exams
2. Legal Bites Academy – Ultimate Test Prep Destination