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.

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

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?

A

The defendant is liable for malicious prosecution

B

The defendant is not liable for malicious prosecution

C

The defendant is not liable to pay damages to the plaintiff

D

The plaintiff suit must be dismissed

Seven people A, B, C, D, E, F and G live on separate floors of a 7-floor building. Ground floor is numbered 1, first floor is numbered. 2 and so on until the topmost floor is numbered 7. Each one of these having a different cars-Cadillac, Ambassador, Fiat, Maruti, Mercedes, Bedford and Fargo but not necessarily in the same order. Only three people live above the floor on which A lives. Only one person lives between A and the one having a car Cadillac. F lives immediately below the one having a car Bedford. The one having a car Bedford lives on an even-numbered floor. Only three people live between the ones having a car Cadillac and Maruti. E lives immediately above C. E is not having a car Maruti. Only two people live between B and the one having a car Fargo. The one having a car Fargo lives below the floor on which B lives. The one having a car Fiat does not live immediately above D or immediately below B. D does not live immediately above or immediately below A. G does not have a car Ambassador. Question : How many people live between the floors on which D and the one having a car Bedford ?

A

One

B

Two

C

Three

D

Four

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

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

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

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

A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff, finding the possession of the Plaintiff to be settled, would operate as res judicata in a suit for partition filed by the Defendant for the same property.

A

Yes

B

No

C

A and B depending on facts and circumstances of each case

D

A and B depending on the discretion of Court

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

The plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from the defendant

B

The plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from the police

C

The plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from both

D

The plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages for malicious prosecution at all

A civil suit was repeatedly fixed by the trial court for examination of the defendant's witnesses but the said opportunity was not availed by the defendant, therefore on 18^th November 2016 when neither the defendant nor his counsel had appeared, the trial court had proceeded ex parte and heard the final arguments and reserved the case for judgement. On 28^th November 2016 the defendant had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is

A

Maintainable

B

Non-maintainable

C

Matter of discretion of the court to accept or not

D

Matter of inherent power of the court to accept or not