Get Advice on Live Video Call
Earn $ Cash $ with
consultations on Bissoy App

Ram was dispossessed from his house by Shyam for a year. Ram files a suit for possession against Shyam but did not included claim for for damages in it. For claiming damages Ram:

Correct Answer: Could not file a new suit

Ram Lal & Co., a sole proprietary of Ram Lal, files a suit against 'X' for recovery of money. 'X' files a Counter Claim in the said suit for recovery of money owed by Shyam Lal & Co., a sole proprietary of Shyam Lal, son of Ram Lal:

To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition

Ram aged 25 years, tell Shyam who is aged 17 years and on account of the death of his father is sad, that if Shyam dies by jumping in a burning pyre of a woman he i.e. Shyam would meet his father in heaven and would find bliss. Shyam, aged 17 years, know that by doing so he would be committing suicide, but on account of instigation by Ram suffers death by jumping in the burning pyre of a woman. Ram is guilty of:

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
Factual Situation: Ram, Shyam and Vipin were friends. Vipin was in love with Anita and wanted to marry her. One day she told him that her marriage was fixed with a rich NRI and that he should not disturb her again in future. Vipin, who became depressed, told this to his friends. Ram suggested that they should go to a nearby bar and drink some Beer so that Vipin could relax. As Vipin was not habituated to drinks, initially he declined but later at the bar Ram told Vipin to take a little Whisky, which he did hesitatingly, After a while Vipin became totally intoxicated and started to say that Anita ditched him. Shyam, who was also drunk then said. " If you are so worried, go and kill her". A little while later all three friends parted company. Vipin went straight to Anita's hostel, called her out and shot her.

Choose the correct answer
(1) A trustee may also be a beneficiary and can be the sole beneficiary
(2) A trustee may also be a beneficiary, but cannot be the sole beneficiary
(3) A donor may also constitute himself a trustee, and though remaining in possession, may transfer legal possession by declaring his possession as donee's.
(4) A donor may also constitute himself a trustee, and though remaining in possession, cannot transfer legal possession by declaring his possession as donee's.

A file a suit against B to recover possession of a house. He values his claim in the plaint at Rs. 8,000. The suit is filed in court C, which has jurisdiction to try the suit of a value upto Rs. 10,000. The market value of the house is Rs. 12,000 but B does not object to the jurisdiction of the court. The decree is passed in favour of A

X, an owner of house at Aligarh, left Aligarh in the year 1970 after appointing Y as its care taker to look after the house. Y starts living in the said house with the knowledge of X. X brings an action in the year 2005 against Y for delivery of possession of the house in question. Y takes the plea that (1) the suit is barred by time and (2) he has perfected the title by adverse possession. State whether-

Mark the incorrect proposition:
1. Set-off is a statutory defence to a plaintiff's action, whereas a counterclaim is a cross-action.
2. Set-off and counter-claim arises out of the same transaction.
3. Set-off should not be barred on the date of the suit while counter-claim should not be barred on the date of filing of written statement.
4. Claim for set-off cannot exceed plaintiff's claim, whereas counterclaim can exceed the plaintiffs claim.
5. Both set-off and counter-claim cannot exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.

Propositions are:
1. Set-off and counter-claim arises out of the same transaction.
2. Set-off should not be barred on the date of the suit while counter-claim should not be barred on the date of filing of written statement.
3. Claim for set-off cannot exceed plaintiff's claim, whereas counter-claim can exceed the plaintiff's claim.
In respect of the aforesaid which is correct:

Consider the following set of legal propositions:
1. A person can claim damages for all wrongs he has suffered.
2. A person can claim damages for wrongs only if they are caused intentionally.
3. A person can claim damages for a wrong if it is caused by infringement of this legal right.
4. A person can claim damage even if he has suffered no loss.
Of the above propositions: