Where the manager of a joint Hindu family alienates joint family property, the burden of proof of necessity ties

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

The General Manager is entitled to a comission of 10% on net profit after charging the commission of Works Manager. The Works Manager is entitled to a commission of 5% on the net profits after charging the commission of General Manager. The profit before charging any commission is Rs. 7,500. The commission of the Works manager, to the nearest rupee, will be:

A

Rs. 321

B

Rs. 333

C

Rs. 337

D

Rs. 339

The general manager is entitled to a commission of 10% on net profit after charging the commission of works manager. The works manager is entitled to a commission of 5% on the net profit after charging the commission of general manager. The profit before charging any commission is Rs. 7,000. The commission of the works manager, to the nearest rupee, will be

A

Rs. 321

B

Rs. 304

C

Rs. 337

D

Rs. 339

A man buys some shirts and some ties. Shirts cost Tk. 7 each and the ties cost Tk. 30 each. If the man spends exactly Tk. 810 and buys the maximum number of shirts possible under these conditions, what is the ratio of shirts to ties?

A

5 : 3

B

4 : 3

C

3 : 2

D

4 : 1

A man buys some shirts and some ties. Shirts cost Tk.70 each and the ties cost Tk. 30 each. If the man spends exactly Tk. 810 and buys the maximum number of shirts possible under these conditions, what is the ratio of shirts to ties?

A

5:3

B

4:3

C

3:2

D

4:1

Statements : All the ties are shirts. Some pants are shirts.

Conclusions :I. Some ties are pants.II. No ties is a pants.

A

If only (I) conclusion follows

B

If only (II) conclusion follows

C

If either conclusion (I) or (II) follows

D

If neither conclusion (I) nor (II) follows

E

If both conclusion (I) and (II) follows

Give the correct Response
1. The interest of a coparcener in the joint family property becomes fixed only by partition.
2. A coparcener has an interest by birth in the joint family property.
3. The interest that a coparcener acquires at birth is undetermined interest.
4. The interest which a coparcener acquires in the joint family property is unpredictable as well as fluctuating.

A

1, 3 and 4

B

1, 2 and 4

C

1 and 3

D

1, 2, 3 and 4

Descartes gives
1. causal proof.
2. cosmological proof.
3. non-causal proof.
4. non-cosmological proof.
Select the correct answer:

A

2 and 4

B

2 and 3

C

1 and 2

D

3 and 4

Power of the manager of a joint Hindu family to alienate joint family property has been defined by the Judicial Committee in

A

Hanooman Prasad v. Musummat Babooee

B

Suraj Bansi Koer v. Sheo Prashad

C

Radha Krishan Das v. Kaluram

D

Sadhu Ram v. Bhup Singh

Where the manager of a joint Hindu family alienates joint family property, the burden of proof of necessity ties

Related Questions