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

A document was in the joint possession of X and Y. In a suit between Y and Z, Z requested the court for the discovery of that document. Y informed the court about the nature of the document and also stated that X is not consenting to produce the document. Z requested the court to compel Y for the production of the document as it is in the joint possession. Decide whether the court will compel Y for the production of the document.

Correct Answer: No

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

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.

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?

In a contractual dispute between two parties A and B, A files a suit in New Delhi where the cause of action arose. Two days later, B files a suit in the same matter in Mumbai, where A is resident. The pendency of the first suit is not brought to the notice of the court in Mumbai. The court pronounces judgement in second suit before the first suit is decided. Would such decision operate as a bar on the court in New Delhi to try the suit any further?

In order for that a decision in a former suit may operate as res judicata, the court which may decide that suit must have been?
1. A civil court of competent jurisdiction
2. A court of exclusive jurisdiction
3. A court of concurrent jurisdiction 'competent to try the subsequent suit'
4. A court of limited jurisdiction competent to try the issue raised in the subsequent suit

Principle: Euthanasia or mercy killing is not accepted as a defence in Indian law.
Factual Situation: X was suffering from HIV AIDS and was in a pathetic condition. The Doctors treating him told him that there was no hope. X decided to end his life and requested Z, his Doctor to kill him by injecting some poison into his body. Dr. Z agreed to his request and made preparations for executing the request of X. A nurse who happened to work in the same hospital was also a member of an NGO in the field of Human Rights. The nurse informed the matter to the NGO which in turn informed the police. The Police arrested Dr. Z while he was near X to give an injection to end the life of X.

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

Rule: Courts are under an obligation to inform the parties where an appeal lies. A lower court judge pronounced a judgment after hearing lengthy arguments from plaintiff's and defendant's advocates. He did not inform the parties about the period of limitation for filing an appeal under latest amendment. The plaintiff failed to appeal on time and requested the higher court for condonation of delay on the ground that the lower court judge failed to fulfil his obligation as he was not informed about the appeal. Will the higher court consider this ground as sufficient cause for condonation of delay?

The assignee of the holder of a life estate sued for declaration of title and injunction, immediately after the death of the life estate-holder. The suit for declaration of title was decreed, but the suit for injection was dismissed after holding that the possession was with the defendants only. Subsequently, the assignee of the life estate filed a suit for possession on the strength of the title. The bar of O. 2, r 2 was raised by the defendant.

A' a resident of Mumbai has a website 'www.caravan.co.in' launched in 2015. 'A' has a business of apparels in Mumbai having a trade mark 'CARAVAN'. The website is accessible from Delhi. 'B' a resident of Hyderabad starts a website 'www.caravaan.co.in' in 2017 having the same business. The website of 'B' consists of a catalogue, a toll free number, and an email address. 'A' wants to file a suit for passing off of trade mark in Delhi.
1. 'A' can file a suit in Delhi on the basis of accessibility of website of 'B'.
2. 'A' cannot file a suit merely on the accessibility of website.
3. 'A' cannot file a suit in Delhi as the website of 'B' is not interactive.
4. 'A' can file a suit if 'B' specifically targets the forum state resulting in harm to 'A' in forum State.
Choose the correct option from below: