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

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

Propositions are
1. Gift made during marz-ul-maut to a heir is valid without the consent of other heirs under Sunnite law
2. Gift made during marz-ul-maut to a heir is valid without the consent of other heirs under Ithna Ashari law
3. Gift made during marz-ul-maut to a heir is valid only with the consent of other heirs, under Sunnite law
4. Gift made during marz-ul-maut to a heir is valid only with the consent of other heirs under the Shia law.
Which amongst the following is correct

A

1 is true 2-3-4 are false

B

1 & 2 are true 3 & 4 are false

C

2 & 3 are true 1 & 4 are false

D

3 & 4 are true 1 & 2 are false

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

A

Selling of the property for marriage of grand daughter

B

Selling of the property to discharge the debts of a close family friend

C

Selling of the property to purchase business machinery

D

Selling of an old house as he had insufficient income to support several family members

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

A married male can adopt:
(1) Only with his wife's consent
(2) Only with his wife's consent, when she is living with him
(3) If he has more than one wife, consent of all the wives is necessary
(4) If marriage is void, the wife's consent is not necessary
(5) In the case of voidable marriage, the Wife's consent is necessary

A

(1), (3), (4) and (5)

B

(2), (3), (4) and (5)

C

(1), (4), and (5)

D

(2), (3), and (4)

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

Read the following and give correct answer with the help of given below:
A married Hindu female can adopt a child
(1) Only with the consent of her husband.
(2) In case of void marriage, consent of husband is necessary.
(3) In case of voidable marriage, consent of husband is not necessary.
(4) If husband has converted to Muslim religion, his consent is not necessary.

A

(1) and (4) are correct, but (2) and (3) are incorrect.

B

(1), (3) and (4) are correct, but (2) is incorrect.

C

(2) and (4) are correct, but (1) and (3) are incorrect.

D

(4) and (2) are correct, but (3) and (1) are incorrect.

Where a voidable alienation is set aside at the instance of the other coparceners, the alienee

A

Has an equity entitling him to a refund of a proportionate part of the purchase money

B

Has no equity entitling him to a refund of a proportionate part of the purchase money

C

Either (A) or (B) depending on the facts & circumstances of the case

D

Either (A) or (B) as per the discretion of the court

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

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

Related Questions