A suit to set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward, by the ward who has attained majority, can be filed within three years (Article 60(1) of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963) from when the

A suit to set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward, by the ward who has attained majority, can be filed within three years (Article 60(1) of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963) from when the Correct Answer Ward attains majority

Bissoy MCQ

Related Questions

The period of limitation for filing a suit to set aside transfer of property made by a guardian of a ward, by the ward's legal representative, when the ward dies before attaining majority, is:
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.
Statement : Residents from Model Colony coming under North Ward of City X have complained to the Ward Officer that for last three days the tap water in the ward is contaminated and no action is being initiated by municipal staff.

Courses of Action :
I. The Ward Officer of North Ward should initiate action against residents who have lodged complaints against municipal staff.
II. The Ward Officer should ask his junior officer to visit Model Colony to assess the actual condition of water with his staff and to get samples of water tested from laboratories.
III. The Ward Officer should ask Ward Engineer to check water installations and pipelines in the Model Colony area.
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
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
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 case of a suit for property which the plaintiff has conveyed while insane, the time from which the period of limitation (three years under Article 102 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963) begins to run is
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
The period of limitation to set aside a sale in execution of a decree under Article 127 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, from the date of the sale is:
In case of a suit by a person excluded from a joint family property to enforce a right to share therein, the time from which the period of limitation (12 years under Article 110 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963) begins to run is