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

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?

Correct Answer: 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

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', on 9th January, 2015 agrees to sell his immovable property to 'R' and out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- receives a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from 'B' as advance payment and agrees to vacate the property and handover vacant peaceful physical possession thereof to 'B' and to execute the Sale Deed of the property in favour of 'B' on receipt of balance sale 'consideration' on or before 9th July, 2015. 'A' fails to vacate the property or to execute the Sale Deed or to deliver possession of the property to 'B'. 'B' after waiting patiently till 31st January, 2016, on 1st February, 2016 got issued a legal notice to 'A' to take the balance sale consideration and execute the Sale Deed and deliver vacant peaceful physical possession. 'A' vide his reply received by 'B' on 17th February, 2016 denies the agreement. The limitation of three years available to 'B' for instituting a suit for specific performance is:

In a suit for recovery of Rs. 25 lakh, the Defendant files its written statement and pleads that it does not owe any money to the Plaintiff but in fact, it is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 40 lakh from the Plaintiff. The Defendant, however, does not file a counter claim. Can the Defendant file the counter claim at a subsequent stage in the suit or file a fresh suit seeking recovery of Rs, 40 lakhs?

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

Plaintiff was the chairperson of the town meeting. The defendant having been very vociferous, a motion was made and carried out by majority that the defendant be turned out. The defendant said he would rather pull out the plaintiff than he turned out. He advanced menacingly towards the plaintiff with clinched fists, but his advance was prevented by a warden. Decide appropriate civil action against the defendant for his action against the plaintiff.

In execution of a decree obtained by A against, B, certain property belonging to B is attached. During the pendency of the attachment, B mortgages the property to C. The property is then sold in execution of the decree and purchased by D.

A theft had been committed in the defendant's house. He informed the police that he suspected the plaintiff for the same. Therefore the plaintiff was arrested by the police. A complaint was filed by the defendant but the plaintiff was subsequently discharged by the magistrate as the final report showed that there was no evidence connecting the plaintiff with the theft. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution.
In the above case, which one of the following decisions is correct?

A suit may be dismissed under Order 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
1. Where the summons is not served upon the defendant in consequence of the plaintiffs failure to pay costs for service of summons.
2. Where neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appears.
3. Where plaintiff, after summons returned unserved, fails for 7 days to apply for fresh summons.
4. Where on the date fixed for hearing in a suit only defendant appears and he does not admit the plaintiffs claim.

The defendant had filed a complaint to the Magistrate against the plaintiff. The complaint was dismissed. The defendant moved the Sessions Judge in appeal. He got himself examined in Sessions trial although he knew the charge was false and he was acting without reasonable and probable cause. His complaint was dismissed by the Session Judge. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a suit for malicious prosecution against the defendant.
In the aforesaid case, which one of the following conclusion in correct?

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.