A, a Hindu, claiming as the heir of his uncle, sues the executors of his uncle's widow for property left by the widow, alleging that the same belonged to the estate of his uncle, and that the widow had no power to dispose it off by will. The court holds that the widow had power to do away the property under the will.

A sues B in 1869 to recover a talukdari estate from him. The suit is dismissed on a finding that the estate had become the absolute property of B under a conditional sale made by A to B in 1853. A then sues B in 1875 for redemption of the same property, alleging that he had mortgaged the property as absolute owner thereof to B in 1854.

A

The suit is barred

B

The suit is not barred

C

The suit may or may not be barred

D

None of these

A sues B to recover one of two properties left by C, on the ground that he and not B is his heir. Thereafter, he applies to amend his plaint for including the second property left out in the plaint as originally field. B opposes the application for amendment which is disallowed by the court. A suit by A against B to recover the second property as heir of C would be barred under rule 2:

A

On the ground that A is to be taken to have omitted to sue for it in the first suit

B

He made an attempt to include it in that suit which was foiled by the opposition of B

C

Both A and B

D

None of these

Propositions are
1. Gift made during marz-ul-maut to a heir is valid without the consent of other heirs under Sunnite law
2. Gift made during marz-ul-maut to a heir is valid without the consent of other heirs under Ithna Ashari law
3. Gift made during marz-ul-maut to a heir is valid only with the consent of other heirs, under Sunnite law
4. Gift made during marz-ul-maut to a heir is valid only with the consent of other heirs under the Shia law.
Which amongst the following is correct

A

1 is true 2-3-4 are false

B

1 & 2 are true 3 & 4 are false

C

2 & 3 are true 1 & 4 are false

D

3 & 4 are true 1 & 2 are false

A alleging that he is the adopted son of X, sues B to recover certain property granted to him by X, under a deed and forming part of X's estate. The court finds that A is not the adopted son of X, but he is entitled to the property under the deed and a decree is passed for A. The finding that A is not the adopted son of X:

A

Will not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between A and B in which the question of adoption is again put in issue

B

Will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between A and B

C

Depends on the court's discretion

D

None of the above

A, alleging that he is the adopted son of X, sues B to recover certain property gran ted to him by X under a deed and forming part of the estate of X. The court finds that A is not the adopted son of X; but that he is entitled to the property under the deed and a decree is passed for A.

A

The finding that A is not the adopted son of X, will not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between A and B in which the question of adoption is again put in issue

B

The finding that A is not the adopted son of X, will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between A and B in which the question of adoption is again put in issue

C

Either A or B

D

None of these

A, alleging that he is the proprietor of a village, sues B, C and D for ejectment. The defence is that A is not the proprietor and that part of the village belongs to B, C and D, and the rest to X, Y and Z. The court finds that A is not the proprietor, and A's suit is dismissed. A then sues, X, Y and Z and also B, C and D for declaration that he is the proprietor of the village and for possession.

A

The question of A's title to the village is res judicata so as to bar the suit against B, C and D, who were parties to the former suit, but it is not res judicata so as to bar the suit against X, Y and Z who were not parties to the former suit

B

It cannot be said that B, C and D litigated in the former suit in respect of a private right claimed in common for them and X, Y and Z. They set up only their own right to a part of the property and as to the rest they alleged that it belonged to X, Y and Z

C

Both A and B

D

None of these

If a + b + c + d = 4, then find the value of $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - a} \right)\left( {1 - b} \right)\left( {1 - c} \right)}}$$ + $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - b} \right)\left( {1 - c} \right)\left( {1 - d} \right)}}$$ + $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - c} \right)\left( {1 - d} \right)\left( {1 - a} \right)}}$$ + $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - d} \right)\left( {1 - a} \right)\left( {1 - b} \right)}}$$ is?

A

0

B

5

C

1

D

4

If a + b + c + d = 4, then the value of $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - a} \right)\left( {1 - b} \right)\left( {1 - c} \right)}}$$ + $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - b} \right)\left( {1 - c} \right)\left( {1 - d} \right)}}$$ + $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - c} \right)\left( {1 - d} \right)\left( {1 - a} \right)}}$$ + $$\frac{1}{{\left( {1 - d} \right)\left( {1 - a} \right)\left( {1 - b} \right)}}$$ is?

A

0

B

1

C

4

D

1 + abcd

If window received 1/3 of her hushand's estate, and each of her three sons received 1/3 of the balance. If the widow and one of her sons received a total of Tk. 360,000 from the estate, what was the worth of the estate in Tk?

A

540,000

B

576,000

C

648,000

D

none of these

Where two or more courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try the offence, the question shall be decided
1. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court
2. By the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the accused resides, carries on business or is engaged in a gainful employment
3. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court in consultation with the State Government concerned
4. If the courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by that court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced
Which of the above are correct?

A

1 and 2

B

2 and 3

C

1 and 4

D

1, 2, 3 and 4