Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

A file a suit against B to recover possession of a house. He values his claim in the plaint at Rs. 8,000. The suit is filed in court C, which has jurisdiction to try the suit of a value upto Rs. 10,000. The market value of the house is Rs. 12,000 but B does not object to the jurisdiction of the court. The decree is passed in favour of A

A file a suit against B to recover possession of a house. He values his claim in the plaint at Rs. 8,000. The suit is filed in court C, which has jurisdiction to try the suit of a value upto Rs. 10,000. The market value of the house is Rs. 12,000 but B does not object to the jurisdiction of the court. The decree is passed in favour of A Correct Answer In appellate court B cannot take the objection about the pecuniary jurisdiction of court C

Related Questions

In order for that a decision in a former suit may operate as res judicata, the court which may decide that suit must have been?
1. A civil court of competent jurisdiction
2. A court of exclusive jurisdiction
3. A court of concurrent jurisdiction 'competent to try the subsequent suit'
4. A court of limited jurisdiction competent to try the issue raised in the subsequent suit
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
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?
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?
Mark the incorrect proposition:
1. Set-off is a statutory defence to a plaintiff's action, whereas a counterclaim is a cross-action.
2. Set-off and counter-claim arises out of the same transaction.
3. Set-off should not be barred on the date of the suit while counter-claim should not be barred on the date of filing of written statement.
4. Claim for set-off cannot exceed plaintiff's claim, whereas counterclaim can exceed the plaintiffs claim.
5. Both set-off and counter-claim cannot exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.
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:
Consider the following statement(s).
1. A defendant may set up, by way of a counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff any right or claim in respect of the cause of action accruing to him.
2. The counter-claim may be submitted by the defendant even after he has delivered his defence.
3. The counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Choose the correct answer
(1) A trustee may also be a beneficiary and can be the sole beneficiary
(2) A trustee may also be a beneficiary, but cannot be the sole beneficiary
(3) A donor may also constitute himself a trustee, and though remaining in possession, may transfer legal possession by declaring his possession as donee's.
(4) A donor may also constitute himself a trustee, and though remaining in possession, cannot transfer legal possession by declaring his possession as donee's.
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.
Propositions are:
1. Set-off and counter-claim arises out of the same transaction.
2. Set-off should not be barred on the date of the suit while counter-claim should not be barred on the date of filing of written statement.
3. Claim for set-off cannot exceed plaintiff's claim, whereas counter-claim can exceed the plaintiff's claim.
In respect of the aforesaid which is correct: