Bissoy
Login
Get Advice on Live Video Call
Earn $ Cash $ with
consultations on Bissoy App
The engagement diamond ring of 'N' was stolen by 'T', a thief who sold it to 'J' a jeweller. 'N' filed a suit for recovery of ring against 'J'. 'J' contended that he is ready to pay the price of the ring. Whether the decree for recovery of diamond ring can be refused on the ground that
A
Compensation in terms of money would be adequate relief for the loss of ring
B
J' is bona fide purchaser of ring for consideration
C
There is no jural relation between 'N' & 'J'
D
None of these
Correct Answer:
None of these
In a suit for partition, a Memorandum of Family Settlement is filed and on this basis the partition suit is decreed, but even after disposal of the suit the original Memorandum of Family Settlement remains in the file of the partition suit, then in such situation whether in a suit for eviction by one of the original co-owner of a tenant of a shop of the joint property which has fallen to the share of that co-owner as per the decree passed on the Memorandum of Family Settlement, can the certified copy of the Memorandum of Family Settlement be filed and proved as a public document in the suit against the tenant?
A
No, it cannot be because the original Memorandum of Family Settlement document which exists in the suit for partition which is disposed of, is a private document and not public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act
B
Yes, if a certified copy is obtained of the Memorandum of Family Settlement, and filed in the suit against the tenant, as the certified copy being issued by a court, is a public document
C
Yes, certified copy obtained from a court of the Memorandum of Family Settlement will be a public document provided that the suit was filed and disposed of by a High Court and not the District Court
D
Yes provided the certified copy of the Memorandum of Family Settlement is sought to be proved by the executants of the memorandum of settlement
A delivers his watch to Z, a jeweller, to be regulated. Z carries it to his shop. A, not owing to the jeweller any debt for which the jeweller might lawfully detain the watch as a security, enters the shop openly, takes his watch by force out of Z's hand, and carries it away.
A
A is guilty of theft under Section 378, Indian Penal Code
B
A is not guilty of theft under Section 378, Indian Penal Code
C
A is guilty of criminal trespass and assault
D
Both B and C
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
A
1, 2
B
3, 4
C
2, 4, 5
D
All of these
Which of the following statements are correct for mating gears with involute profiles? (i) The pressure angle, from the start of the engagement to the end of the engagement, remains constant. (ii) The pressure angle is maximum at the beginning of the engagement, reduces to zero at pitch point, starts decreasing and again becomes maximum at the end of the engagement. (iii) The face and flank of the teeth are generated by a single curve and the normal to this curve at any point is tangent to the base circle of the gear. (iv) The centre distance for a pair of mating gears can be varied within limits without altering the velocity ratio. Select the correct answer using the code given below.
A
1, 3 and 4
B
1 and 3 only
C
2 and 4 only
D
2,3 and 4
X sues A and B on a promissory note executed by A, B is A's nephew, and he is joined as a defendant on the ground that A and B are member of a joint Hindu family, and that the note was for a debt binding on the family. None of the defendant appears at the hearing and an ex parte decree is passed against both the defendants.
The decree against A proceeds on the ground that the note was passed by him and against B on the ground that the debt was incurred for a family purpose. B applies for an order to set aside the decree, alleging that the summons was not served upon him and that the debt in respect of which the note was passed by A was not incurred for a family purpose. It is not disputed that the amount was actually advanced to A.
A
The decree against Amust be set aside
B
The decree against B must be set aside
C
Both A and B
D
None of these
In a suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant in his written statement has taken the objection of non-impleadment of necessary party. Despite such objection the plaintiff continued the suit and the suit finally was decreed. At the first appellate stage, the plaintiff withdraws the suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and subsequently filed a fresh suit. The period spent by the plaintiff in the earlier suit, under section 14 of Limitation Act is
A
Liable to be excluded on the ground that the plaintiff was prosecuting the earlier suit with due diligence and in good faith
B
Not liable to be excluded as the plaintiff cannot be said to be prosecuting the earlier suit with due diligence and in good faith
C
Liable to be excluded under section 14(3) of Limitation Act
D
To be excluded or not to be excluded is in the discretion of the court
A thief sees a jeep at a distance of 250 m, coming towards him at 36 km/h. Thief takes 5 seconds to realize that there is nothing but the police is approaching him by the jeep and start running away from police at 54 km/h. But police realise after 10 second, when the thief starts running away, that he is actually a thief and gives chase at 72 km/h. How long after thief saw police did catchup with him and what is the distance police had travel to do so?
A
50 s, 1000 m
B
65 s, 1150 m
C
65 s, 1300 m
D
45 s, 1050 m
E
None of these
A filed a suit for partition and that ended in a final decree. Then A filed a second suit against the defendant claiming mesne profits in respect of excess lands which had been in his possession for a period prior to the passing of the final decree.
A
The suit is not barred
B
The suit is barred
C
Either A or B
D
None of these
The admission ticket for an exhibition bears a password which is changed after every clock hour based on set of words chosen for each day. The following is an illustration of the code and steps of rearrangement for subsequent clock hours. The time is 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Day's first password : First Batch ----- 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. is not ready cloth simple harmony burning Second Batch ----- 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. ready not is cloth burning harmony simple Third Batch ----- 11 a.m. to 12 noon cloth is not ready simple harmony burning Fourth Batch ----- 12 noon to 1 p.m. not is cloth ready burning harmony simple Fifth Batch ----- 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. ready cloth is not simple harmony burning and so on. If the password for 11 a.m. to 12 noon was --- "soap shy miss pen yet the she", what was the password for the first batch ?
A
pen miss shy soap she the yet
B
shy miss pen soap yet the she
C
soap pen miss shy she the yet
D
miss shy soap pen she the yet
In a suit for money a decree is passed by consent whereby the defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 35,000. It is further declared by the decree that the plaintiff should have a first charge on certain immovable property belonging to the defendant. Is the plaintiff entitled to have the property sold in execution of the decree without institution a regular suit for sale on the charge?
A
Yes, because there being no mortgage or charge prior to the decree, the decree cannot be said to have been obtained 'for the payment of money in satisfaction of a claim arising under the mortgage' within the meaning of O. 34 r 14
B
No, because there being no mortgage or charge prior to the decree, the decree can be said to have been obtained 'for the payment of money in satisfaction of a claim arising under the mortgage' within the meaning of O. 34 r 14
C
The immovable property must have been made security for the payment of the money before the decree was obtained, otherwise the provision of this rule do not apply
D
None of these