Ramesh, karta of a joint property sold different properties to different persons on different dates. After the death of Ramesh, Suresh filed a suit joining all the purchasers as defendants and claimed that Ramesh transferred the properties when there was no legal necessity to do so. Purchasers claimed misjoinder of cause of action. Decide whether there is a misjoinder of cause of action.

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

Ramesh and Geeta were husband and wife living in Bangalore. Ramesh was an Income Tax Officer and Geeta was a school teacher. They had two sons studying in schools in Bangalore. Parents of Ramesh were also staying with them. Ramesh was transferred to Madras and he had to leave his family behind at Bangalore. He promised to send every month Rupees thirty thousand to meet family expenditure, to his wife. Ramesh did not send any money from Madras. If Geeta filed a suit for specific performance of the contract, then which one of the following is correct?

A

Family agreements are not contracts and hence, no order for specific performance can be ordered

B

It is a valid contract. Specific performance is to be ordered

C

This is being an agreement without consideration. It is not an enforceable contract

D

It is a breach of family responsibilities, so specific performance order is called for

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

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

Ramesh employs Suresh to beat Mahesh. Ramesh promises to indemnify Suresh against all the consequences of the act. Suresh beats Mahesh and has to pay damages to Mahesh for the beatings committed upon him.

A

Ramesh is liable to indemnity Suresh for those damages

B

Ramesh is not liable to indemnify Suresh for those damages

C

Ramesh is liable to indemnify Mahesh for the loss occurred due to the beatings

D

Ramesh is liable to indemnify both Suresh and Mahesh

A suit was instituted impleading the defendants in a representative capacity. Publication of the notice of the suit was made in a leading daily as directed by Court while granting permission under Order I, Rule 8. Later on the suit happened to be dismissed for default. Plaintiff filed application under Order IX, Rule 9 to restore the suit. Is it necessary to direct publication of the notice regarding the restoration application also in a leading daily to have effective service on all the persons interested?

A

No

B

Yes, but only when such suit is either to be withdrawn or compromised

C

Yes, but only when leave is to be obtained

D

In both the conditions mentioned in B and C

Existence of two suits, by parties litigating under same title, one previously instituted which is pending at present and the other filed later, wherein a matter in issue in the subsequently filed suit is directly and substantially in issue in the other and the relief claimed in the subsequent suit can effectively, be passed by the court of previous instance. Which section of Code of Civil Procedure decides the fate of the subsequently filed suit and its proceeding?

A

Section 9

B

Section 10

C

Section 11

D

Section 12

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

The bar under O. 2, r 2 is not applicable to the subsequent suit

B

In the first suit he plaintiffs could not claim the recovery of possession as they had sought only an injunction, claiming themselves to be in possession

C

Both A and B

D

None of these

In a suit for partition three defendants were set ex parte. Preliminary decree was passed. On the application of one of the three defendants the Court set aside the decree as against all the defendants. The order of the court is

A

Legal

B

Irregular

C

Unjustified

D

Illegal

Ramesh ranks 13^th in the class of 33 students. There are 5 students below Suresh rankwise. How many student are there between Ramesh and Suresh ?

A

12

B

14

C

15

D

16