Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Right to sue on a bond accrues to A during his minority. He attains majority after four years from the accrual of the right to sue. After a year of attaining majority, he becomes insane. His insanity continues for three years. A's suit would be

Right to sue on a bond accrues to A during his minority. He attains majority after four years from the accrual of the right to sue. After a year of attaining majority, he becomes insane. His insanity continues for three years. A's suit would be Correct Answer Time barred even if instituted within a day of being cured of insanity

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
PRINCIPLES: 1. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense.
2. When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of that person or by reason of misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defense against that act, which he would have if that act were an offence.
3. Everyone has the right to defend their life and property against criminal harm provided it is not possible to approach public authorities and more harm than that is necessary has not been caused to avert the danger.
4. If in the exercise of right of private defense against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defense extends to the running of that risk.
5. The right of private defense continues as long as apprehension of danger continues.
FACT: A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z, in good faith, taking A for a housebreaker, attacks A.
"Expression unsoundness of mind has not been defined in Indian Penal Code and has mainly been treated as a equivalent to insanity. An accused who seek exoneration from liability of any act under Section 84 of Indian Penal Code is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity." It was held by the Supreme Court in following case:
Which one of the following is not correct about English bond? a) Bricks in one layer are laid on header bond and courses above and below are stretcher bond b) Bricks in one layer are laid on stretcher bond and courses above and below are header bond c) Every layer of bricks is laid on header and stretcher bond d) Bricks layer aligned such that vertical joint is continuous
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 who is a minor takes loan from B. On attaining majority. A executes a bond in favour of B for the loan taken during the minority. Is A liable?
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
Ramesh works A hours a day and rests B hours a day. This pattern continues for 1 week, with an exactly opposite pattern next week, and so on for four weeks. Every fifth week he adopts a new pattern which then continues for the next four weeks. When he works longer than he rests, his wage per hour is three times what he earns per hour when he rests longer than he works. The following table shows his daily working hours for the week numbered 1 to 13.   1st Week 5th Week 9th Week 13th Week Rest 3 4 5   Work 6 8 9 8   A week consists of six days and a month consists of four weeks. If Ramesh is paid Rs. 60 per working hour in the 1st week, what is his salary for the month? (Assume that he is paid half his wages for his resting hours on duty)
Which of the following statements are true?
(1) Minor's contract can be ratified on attaining majority.
(2) Minor's contract cannot be ratified on attaining majority.
(3) Minor's contract can be ratified jointly by both the parties to the contract.
(4) Minor is not liable under minor's contract.
(5) Minor's contract is an enforceable contract.