Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

A filed a suit for partition and that ended in a final decree. Then A filed a second suit against the defendant claiming mesne profits in respect of excess lands which had been in his possession for a period prior to the passing of the final decree.

A filed a suit for partition and that ended in a final decree. Then A filed a second suit against the defendant claiming mesne profits in respect of excess lands which had been in his possession for a period prior to the passing of the final decree. Correct Answer The suit is barred

Related Questions

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?
Two statements are given followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV. Assuming the statements to be true, even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts, decide which of the conclusions logically follow(s) from the statements. Statements: I. Some forms are open ended. II. All close ended are forms. Conclusions: I. No open ended are forms. II. Some close ended are open ended. III. No forms are close ended. IV. All open ended are close ended.
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 18th 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 28th 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
Which one of the following is the correct sequence of various stages of operating cycle of a manufacturing company?  1. Raw material conversion period, work-in-progress conversion period, Finished goods conversion period, Receivables conversion period 2. Raw material conversion period, work-in-progress conversion period, Creditors payment period, Receivables conversion period 3. Creditor payment period. Raw material conversion period, Receivables conversion period, work-in- progress conversion period 4. Raw material conversion period, Finished goods conversion period, work-in- progress conversion period. Receivables conversion period 
Propositions are
1. A son is liable, before partition, for the debts contracted by his father before partition which are not immoral or illegal.
2. A son is liable, after partition, for the debts contracted by his father before partition which are not immoral or illegal.
3. A son is liable, after partition, for the debts contracted by his father after partition which are not immoral or illegal which of the following is true in respect of the aforesaid propositions.
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?
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 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.
The plaintiff in a suit, onus of all the issues framed wherein is on the plaintiff, during the cross-examination of the defendant and his witnesses produces documents not filed earlier and not executed by the defendant or his witnesses and puts to the defendant and his witnesses the said documents. The said documents are not admitted or acknowledged by the defendant and/or his witnesses and are not admitted into evidence though remain on record.
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