Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Who amongst the following scholars was not in the Court of Kumbha?

Who amongst the following scholars was not in the Court of Kumbha? Correct Answer Muni Jin Vijay Suri

The correct answer is Muni Jin Vijay Suri.

Key Points

  • Tilla Bhatt, Muni Sunder Suri, Natha were the scholars in the Court of Rana Kumbha. 
  • Munni Jin Vijay Suri - He was born in Rupaheli, Mewad near Udaipur on 27 January 1888 to Vriddhisinh and Rajkumari.
    • His birth name was Kishansinh Parmar.
    • He lost his parents at an early age and after his contact with Muni Devihans, he was interested in Jainism.
    • He was initiated as a Sthanakvasi Jain monk in 1903.
    • He was later initiated in Samvegi order of Shvetambara Jain monk and was given a new name, Muni Jinvijay.
    • He learned Sanskrit and Prakrit literature under Kantivijay, a Jain ascetic from Patan, Gujarat.

Additional Information

  • Maharana Kumbha(Kumbhkaran) - He was born on Makar Sakranti day.
    • Parents - Maharana Mokal and Queen Sobhagaya De.
    • He was 16 years old when he became Maharana of Mewar in 1433 CE.
    • His architectural era is known as the Golden Period.
    • The world-famous Kirti Stambh located in Chittor was established by Rana Kumbha.

Related Questions

A Foreign Missionary school has 2001 scholars. The percentage of scholars of this school who study Farsi is between 80 and 85 and the percentage of the scholars of the school who study Swiss is between 30 and 40. Each scholar of this school studies at least one of the two languages. What is the absolute difference between the minimum and maximum possible numbers of scholars who study both Farsi and Swiss?
Statements : All the research scholars are psychologists. Some psychologists are scientists.

Conclusions :
I. All the research scholars are scientists.
II. Some research scholars are scientists.
III. Some scientists are psychologists.
IV. Some psychologists are research scholars.
In each of the following question below are given some statements followed by some conclusions. Taking the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts, read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusion logically follows the given statements. Statements: I. All men are scholars. II. Some scholars are advocate. Conclusions: I. All scholars are men. II. Some men are advocate. III. No men is advocate.
In the question two statements are given, followed by two conclusions, I and II. You have to consider the statements to be true even if it seems to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given conclusions, if any, follows from the given statements. Statement I: No students are scholars. Statement II: No students are teachers. Conclusion I: Some teachers are scholars. Conclusion II: All scholars are teachers.
Read the given statements and conclusions carefully. Assuming that the information given in the statement is true, even if it appears to be at variance with commonly known facts, decide which of the given conclusions logically follow(s) from the statements. Statements: A few student are scholars. Some scholars are girls. All girls are literates. Conclusions: I. Some students are girls. II Some scholars are literates. III. Some literates being students is a possibility.
Which of the following statements are correct in the context of Section 5 of Code of Civil Procedure?
1. Revenue Court is a part of Civil Court
2. Civil Court. means courts having original jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure but not Revenue Court
3. Civil Court means courts having original jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure including Revenue Court
4. Revenue Court is not a part of Civil Court
Which of the following statements are correct? Answer by using the code given below:
1. Persons in Govt/Judicial service need not resign to participate in District judge selection process held in "Vijay Kumar Misra and another v. High Court of Judicature at Patna" by the Supreme Court of India
2. The Supreme Court of India held in S. Kazi v. Muslim Education Society that " All Tribunals are not necessary parties to the proceedings where legality of its orders challenged"
3. The Supreme Court of India observed in Cardanumom Marketing Corporation and others v. State of Kerala and others that Social Security to the legal profession becomes an essential part of legal system
4. The Supreme Court of India held in 'Union of India v. Rajasthan High Court and others that High Court judges are exempted from Airport frisking.
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court passes judgment in a matter. In a later case before a high court, a party presents the Supreme Court judgment as a binding authority. The opposing party claims that the high court is not bound by the Supreme Court's judgment because relevant provisions of law were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in that case. Which of the following is most correct in this case?
Principle: Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Where two or more courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try the offence, the question shall be decided
1. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court
2. By the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the accused resides, carries on business or is engaged in a gainful employment
3. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court in consultation with the State Government concerned
4. If the courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by that court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced
Which of the above are correct?
A decree was transferred for its execution from Court X to Court Y. Court Y is of the opinion that Court X committed an error when it calculated the limitation period. Court Y announced that it rectified the mistake of Court X and upheld the rule of law by pronouncing judgment in favour of judgment debtor. This was challenged by the decree holder in the appellate court. Predict whether the decree holder will win the case.