Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Limitation Act - Suit filed by plaintiff based on agreement to sell, which was executed on 3rd September, 2001 with a stipulation that sale deed will be executed within six months. Stay order passed in another appeal by which the owner was restrained from alienating the property w.e.f. 3rd March, 2003 to 28th September, 2006 for the purpose of the calculation of the period of limitation -

Limitation Act - Suit filed by plaintiff based on agreement to sell, which was executed on 3rd September, 2001 with a stipulation that sale deed will be executed within six months. Stay order passed in another appeal by which the owner was restrained from alienating the property w.e.f. 3rd March, 2003 to 28th September, 2006 for the purpose of the calculation of the period of limitation - Correct Answer Period of three years would start from 3<sup>rd</sup> March, 2002 i.e. after lapse for six months because there was no stay against the plaintiff for filing a suit claiming specific performance

Related Questions

A', on 9th 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 9th 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 31st January, 2016, on 1st 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 17th February, 2016 denies the agreement. The limitation of three years available to 'B' for instituting a suit for specific performance is:
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
X' executed a sale deed in favour of 'Y' on 1st January, 2002. Subsequently on 10th January, 2002, 'X' executed a sale deed in respect of the same property in favour of 'Z'. Thereafter the sale deed in favour of 'Z' executed on 10th January, 2002 was registered on 20th January, 2002. Whereas the sale deed in favour of 'Y' was registered on 30th January, 2002.
In the said case, by virtue of section 47
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.
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?
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?
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 
Assertion (A): Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 empowers the Court to admit a suit after the prescribed period if the plaintiff satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not instituting the suit.
Reason (R): Even an appeal may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant shows sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period.
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
Rule: Courts are under an obligation to inform the parties where an appeal lies. A lower court judge pronounced a judgment after hearing lengthy arguments from plaintiff's and defendant's advocates. He did not inform the parties about the period of limitation for filing an appeal under latest amendment. The plaintiff failed to appeal on time and requested the higher court for condonation of delay on the ground that the lower court judge failed to fulfil his obligation as he was not informed about the appeal. Will the higher court consider this ground as sufficient cause for condonation of delay?