Where certain properties have been ordered to be partitioned by a decree in an earlier suit, but possession has not yet been delivered and is not argued that the earlier decree had become unenforceable:

Where certain properties have been ordered to be partitioned by a decree in an earlier suit, but possession has not yet been delivered and is not argued that the earlier decree had become unenforceable: Correct Answer A fresh suit cannot be brought for partition of those properties on the ground that the earlier decree has not been enforced

Bissoy MCQ

Related Questions

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
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.
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 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
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 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.
In a contractual dispute between two parties A and B, A files a suit in New Delhi where the cause of action arose. Two days later, B files a suit in the same matter in Mumbai, where A is resident. The pendency of the first suit is not brought to the notice of the court in Mumbai. The court pronounces judgement in second suit before the first suit is decided. Would such decision operate as a bar on the court in New Delhi to try the suit any further?
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 man ordered a length of rope by telephone from his nearest hardware shop. But when a worker in the shop brought the rope, he found that the man on the telephone had miswritten the order by interchange feet and inches. As a result of this, the length of rope received was only 30% of the length he had ordered. The length of the rope which the man ordered was between :
In a suit for money a decree is passed by consent whereby the defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 35,000. It is further declared by the decree that the plaintiff should have a first charge on certain immovable property belonging to the defendant. Is the plaintiff entitled to have the property sold in execution of the decree without institution a regular suit for sale on the charge?