What is the period of limitation for a case 'for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed.'?

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

1

B

2

C

3

D

4

Assertion (A): Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit appeal or application a period of limitation different from period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the schedule.
Reason (R): Where a Special Law prescribes a period of limitation for filing appeal but there is no provision therefore under Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation provided under the Special Law must be treated to be different from that under the Limitation Act.

A

Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is correct explanation of (A)

B

Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is not correct explanation of (A)

C

(A) is true but (R) is false

D

(A) is false but (R) is true

A suit for possession of an immovable property based on title by a plaintiff, who has been dispossessed can be filed:

A

Within six months of dispossession as per Section 5 of Specific Relief Act

B

Even beyond six months and upto a period of 12 years as provided in Article 65 of the Limitation Act when dispossession is of a person who is the title holder of the immovable property

C

Beyond six months against a rank trespasser, by an owner of an immovable property, if dispossession of the plaintiff of an immovable property takes place after plaintiff had already given a public notice of his being in actual physical possession of the suit property against the world at large

D

Beyond six months of dispossession of a person having an ownership title, and against a person who dispossesses the person having ownership title provided only if the title of the plaintiff is recorded either in the municipal records or in the revenue records

A', on 9^th 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 9^th 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 31^st January, 2016, on 1^st 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 17^th February, 2016 denies the agreement. The limitation of three years available to 'B' for instituting a suit for specific performance is:

A

With effect from 9^th January, 2015

B

With effect from 9^th July, 2015

C

With effect from 17^th February, 2016

D

With effect from 1^st February, 2016

A theft had been committed in the defendant's house. He informed the police that he suspected the plaintiff for the same. Therefore the plaintiff was arrested by the police. A complaint was filed by the defendant but the plaintiff was subsequently discharged by the magistrate as the final report showed that there was no evidence connecting the plaintiff with the theft. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution.
In the above case, which one of the following decisions is correct?

A

The plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from the defendant

B

The plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from the police

C

The plaintiff is entitled to claim damages from both

D

The plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages for malicious prosecution at all

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

A

Liable to be excluded on the ground that the plaintiff was prosecuting the earlier suit with due diligence and in good faith

B

Not liable to be excluded as the plaintiff cannot be said to be prosecuting the earlier suit with due diligence and in good faith

C

Liable to be excluded under section 14(3) of Limitation Act

D

To be excluded or not to be excluded is in the discretion of the court

The plaintiff instructed his Banker to deposit excise duty on his behalf in the Govt. treasury and debit the current account of plaintiff. The Bank deposited the said sum in the treasury. Later the plaintiff came to know, that the said amount was embezzled by the Treasurer and the Accountant of the treasury and the amount was not credited in the name of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff brings an action against the State for damages then the State is:

A

Not liable to compensate as it involved a sovereign function

B

Liable to compensable as the function is a banking function which is not a sovereign function of the State

C

Liable to compensate as an ordinary employer

D

Not liable to but the individuals are liable to compensate

During continuance of possession of immovable property the person in possession is estopped from denying the title to such immovable property of the person who put him in such possession, if:

A

The possession is as a tenant

B

The possession is as a licencee

C

The person in possession is in unauthorized occupation

D

Both A and B

In which of the following case, the court has held that limitation period as provided in the Limitation Act, 1963 would extend seven years by virtue of Section 39 of the Limitation Act, since a period of 30 years. Thus making Limitation period for redemption of Mortgage as 37 years

A

Santa Singh v. Prakash Singh

B

Purshottam v. Sagaji

C

M. P. Ahmad v. Kutheravattam Estate Receiver

D

All the above cases

A suit for recovery of possession based on the previous possession of a person can be filed by such a person even against real owner of that property who has dispossessed him

A

Within one year of his dispossession

B

Within three years of the dispossession

C

Within six months of his dispossession

D

Is not maintainable

What is the period of limitation for a case 'for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed.'?

Related Questions