Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

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 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. Correct Answer The suit is not barred

Related Questions

Besides the mortgagor, any of the following persons may redeem or institute a suit for redemption of, the mortgaged property. These persons are:
(1) any person (other than the mortgagee of the interest sought to be redeemed) who has any interest in, or charge upon, the property mortgaged or in or upon the right to redeem the same.
(2) any surety for the payment of the mortgagedebt or any part thereof.
(3) any creditor of the mortgagor who has in a suit for administration of his estate obtained a decree for sale of the mortgaged property.
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', 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:
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, 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.
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?
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, 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, 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 to recover Rs. 1,000 alleged to be rent due under a lease executed by B. The court finds that B was in occupation of the premises during the period for which the rent is claimed, but that the alleged lease was not executed by B. At this stage A applies to amend his plaint by alleging that, though the lease was not executed by B, he is entitled to recover the amount for use and occupation of the premises.