A' the tenant files a suit for permanent injunction against 'B' the landlord for not to be dispossessed except by due process of law pleading that 'B' is planning to forcibly dispossess him. During the pendency of above suit, 'B' attempts to forcibly disposes 'A'. 'A' files another suit for injunction.

X' files a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against 'Y' and files an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1(c), Code of Civil Procedure, The Court dismisses the application for temporary injunction. 2 months later, during the pendency of the suit, X again files for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1(c), Code of Civil Procedure, citing new facts and changed circumstances.

A

The second application is barred by res judicata

B

Res judicata does not apply to interlocutory orders like temporary injunctions

C

The decision given by the court on the first application is binding throughout the pendency of the trial and can be altered only on appeal

D

The second application is barred by the principle of res sub judice

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

The expression "holding over" under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is used in the sense of retaining possession. A distinction is made between a tenant continuing in possession after the determination of the lease without the consent of the landlord, and a tenant doing so with the landlord's consent:

A

The former is called a "tenant by sufferance" and the latter class of tenants is called "tenant holding over a tenant at will"

B

The former is called "tenant holding over a tenant at will" and latter is called "tenant by sufferance"

C

Former is called sub-tenant latter is called forfeiture lessor

D

None of the above

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?

A

Yes, the principle of res judicata will apply

B

No, the principle of res judicata only applies against 'former suits.' In this case, the suit in Mumbai was filed subsequent to the suit in Delhi and is therefore not a 'former suit.'

C

No, because the parties did not disclose the pendency of the previous suit to the Court in Mumbai

D

No, because the plaintiff in the first suit is not the plaintiff in the second suit

A' files a Suit for Mandatory Injunction against illegal disconnection of electricity. 'A' also suffers loss in the business on account of non supply of electricity. The suit for Mandatory Injunction is dismissed. 'A' thereafter files suit for damages for suffering loss. The subsequent Suit is barred

A

Under Code of Civil Procedure

B

Under Specific Relief Act

C

By limitation

D

None of these

In a suit for possession by the landlord against his tenant, a sub-tenant is a

A

Necessary party

B

Proper party

C

Both A and B

D

None of the above

B' a bank, under a scheme for grant of educational loan to females, grants a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- to 'A'. 'A' fails to repay the loan and 'B' files a suit for recovery thereof. During the pendency of suit, 'A' is married. 'B' does not take any steps within the prescribed time, to substitute the maiden name of 'A' with the married name of 'A' in the suit. The suit is decided in favour of 'B' and against 'A' in her maiden name:

A

The suit abates and decree is a nullity

B

The suit does not abate but the decree against 'A' in her maiden name cannot be executed

C

The decree can be executed against the husband of 'A' also

D

The decree may be executed against 'A' in her married name

Principle: A plaintiff who suffers some injury will be entitled to receive compensation even if he suffers no loss.
Factual Situation: Reddy was a strong political worker of Party X. He was proceeding to the poling booth at about 7:30 am, to cast his vote in favour of Mr. Naik, his party candidate. On the way, the State Police officials suspected Reddy to be an anti-social element and took him into custody for questioning. Reddy pleaded with the officials that he was a genuine voter and had no previous criminal records and requested them to allow him to cast his vote. The officials allegedly detained him in custody till about 4:45 pm and thereafter released him, recording that they could not find any thing against him. By the time Reddy reached the poling booth the polling time was over and he could not vote for Mr. Naik. When the results were declared Mr. Naik got a Majority of over 6000 votes and Party X got the majority to form the Government. Reddy files a suit for compensation against the State.

A

Reddy will succeed as the police could not prove anything against him

B

Reddy will succeed as his right to vote was denied by the police

C

Reddy will not succeed as his candidate won the election and therefore there is no cause of action against the police

D

Reddy will not succeed as the police can arrest a suspected criminal

Which of the following components are true about tax planning?
1. Tax planning is the process of analyzing a financial plan or a situation from a tax perspective.
2. The objective of tax planning is to make sure there is tax efficiency. With the help of tax planning, one can ensure that all elements of a financial plan can function together with maximum tax-efficiency.
3. Reducing tax liability and increasing the ability to make contributions towards retirement plans are critical for success.
4. Tax planning comprises various considerations such as size, the timing of income, timing of purchases, and planning are concerned with other kinds of expenditures.
5. The chosen investments and the various retirement plans should go hand-in-hand with the tax filing status as well as the deductions in order to create the best possible outcome.

A

1, 2 and 3

B

2, 3 and 4

C

3, 4 and 5

D

All of the above

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