Give correct responseThe alienation by Karta will not be considered as for the purpose of legal necessity?

Give correct response
An alienation made by the karta without legal necessity but with the consent of all other adult coparceners is:

A

Invalid

B

Void

C

Valid

D

Voidable

Alienation by the Karta without legal necessity or benefit of estate or in discharge of indispensable duty is :

A

Valid

B

Voidable

C

Void

D

None of the above

Give correct response
Which of the following sales of the joint family property made by the Karta of the Hindu Joint family could not be said for the legal necessity:

A

Payments of rent or Government revenue and debts binding on the family

B

A house of the joint family is sold to meet the expenses of appeal to defend one of the coparceners, convicted by the lower court, of a raping a minor girl and then killing her

C

Karta sold the dwelling house to meet the expenses of higher education of his second son. Karta, himself and his first sons are employed as peons in a Government Office

D

Sale of a part of joint family property to meet the expenses of the re-marriage of a widowed daughter

Give correct response
A sale of the joint family property made by the Karta of the Hindu Joint family could not be said for the legal necessity.

A

Karta mortgaged the jewels belonging to the family for obtaining money for the purpose of assisting prosecution of person accused of murder of his (Karta's) daughter

B

Karta, aged 45 years, sold some portion of ancestral property to perform his own second marriage

C

Both (A) and (B)

D

None of the above

Ramesh, karta of a joint property sold different properties to different persons on different dates. After the death of Ramesh, Suresh filed a suit joining all the purchasers as defendants and claimed that Ramesh transferred the properties when there was no legal necessity to do so. Purchasers claimed misjoinder of cause of action. Decide whether there is a misjoinder of cause of action.

A

Yes, there is a misjoinder of cause of action

B

No, there is no misjoinder

C

Facts are not sufficient to decide

D

None of the above

When an alienation is made by the manager without legal necessity but with the consent of all other coparceners, they being all adults, is

A

Void ab initio

B

Void to the extent of the share of other coparceners

C

Valid in its entirety

D

Voidable at the instance of coparceners

Karta's power of alienation of ancestral property are

A

Wider than that of karta under the Mitakshara law

B

Restricted than that of karta under the Mitakshara law

C

Same as that of karta under the Mitakshara law

D

Wider in certain respects and restricted in certain others, than that of karta under the Mitakshara law

Within Kantian frame work, which of the following hold(s) good?
1. Freedom of the rational will and necessity of natural causality are compatible.
2. Necessity of natural causality relates the action to its consequences, while freedom of rational will relates the agent to the choice of freedom

A

Only 1

B

Only 2

C

Both 1 and 2

D

Neither 1 nor 2

Which of the following statements is/are correct?
1. Under the Information Technology Act, 2000, the appellant can make a legal representation in person.
2. The appellant can authorize one or more legal practitioners to present his case before the Cyber Appellate Tribunal.
3. The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to an appeal before the Cyber Appellate Tribunal.
4. The Cyber Appellate Tribunal is bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Select the correct answer using the give below:-

A

1, 2 and 4

B

1 and 2 only

C

2 only

D

3 and 4

Give correct response
A Karta can alienate the joint family property for:

A

Kutumbarthe

B

Apatkale

C

Dharamarthe

D

All of the above

Give correct response
The alienation by Karta will not be considered as for the purpose of legal necessity?

Related Questions