Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

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.

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. Correct Answer The amendment will not be allowed

Related Questions

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 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.
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 
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 sues B for rent; B pleads abatement of rent on the ground that the area is less than that entered in the lease. The court finds that the area is greater than that shown in the lease.
A lets a house to B at yearly rent of Rs. 12,000/-. The rent for the whole of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 is due and unpaid. A sues B in 2018 only for the rent due for the year 2016. Whether A can after wards sue for the rent due for the year of 2015 and 2017?
A lets a premises to B at a yearly rent of Rs. 50,000/-. The rent for whole of the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 is due and unpaid. A sues B in 2018 only for the rent due for 2014 and 2015.
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.
X sues A and B on a promissory note executed by A, B is A's nephew, and he is joined as a defendant on the ground that A and B are member of a joint Hindu family, and that the note was for a debt binding on the family. None of the defendant appears at the hearing and an ex parte decree is passed against both the defendants.
The decree against A proceeds on the ground that the note was passed by him and against B on the ground that the debt was incurred for a family purpose. B applies for an order to set aside the decree, alleging that the summons was not served upon him and that the debt in respect of which the note was passed by A was not incurred for a family purpose. It is not disputed that the amount was actually advanced to A.