Civil Law I

Punjab Civil Service Examination (2001)
Judicial Branch
Civil Law Paper- 1
Time : Three Hours                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Maximum Marks : 200

Attempt any five questions selecting atleast one question from each part i.e. A, B, C, D & E.  All questions carry equal marks.

PART – A

Q 1 (a)  The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of his title to a land and for recovery of possession of a portion of the suit land on the basis of a sale deed in his favour.  The defendants contested the suit on the ground that they are in undisturbed possession of that land for the last 28 years and also filed certain documents to this effect and produced three witnesses in support of their contention.  Relying on the documents and the evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court held that the defendants had been in possession of that portion of the suit land continuously and adversely for the last 28 years as their own and as such the plaintiff's suit in respect of that portion of the suit land was barred by limitation.  The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order of the trial Court.  The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court.  The plaintiff filed a second appeal in the High Court with the plea that the question of limitation recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court is a question of law to be determined by the High Court in the Second Appeal.  The High Court dismissed the second appeal.  Was the High Court justified in dismissing the second appeal?  Answer with the help of relevant provisions of Civil Procedure code and the case law.
(b)   Arjun, the owner of an Estate died.  On his death, his estate was mutated in the revenue records in the name of his widow, Smt.  Rani, Ravi claiming himself to be an adopted son of Arjun filed a Suit for possession in the Court alleging that Smt.  Rani is not the widow of Arjun.  The trial Court partially decreed the suit in favour of Ravi but on appeal the First Appellate Court held that Ravi was not validly adopted son of Arjun and set aside the decree of the trial Court.  Ravi filed a second appeal in the High Court.  During the pendency of the second appeal, Smt. Rani died and her estate was mutated in favour of Smt.  Devi, the sister of Smt. Rani.  Fully cognizant that Smt.  Devi had appeared on the scene to claim the estate, Ravi chose to sleep over the matter and did not have the estate represented by making a suitable application.
What application should have been moved by Ravi in the Court on the death of Smt.  Rani and under the above circumstances what will be the fate of the second appeal pending before the High Court?  Decide with reference to the relevant provisions of Civil Procedure code and the case law.
Q. 2 (a)  A contract was entered into between jaspal Singh and Rajat Sharma that Jaspal Singh shall supply readymade garments to Rajat Sharma at Delhi for a total price of Rs. 8 Lacs within two months of the order.  Jaspal Singh acknowledged the order from Rajast Sharma on 1.1.2000 and sent the required readymade garments to Rajat Sharma which were received by him on 29.2.2000 but he did not pay the price of the garments supplied to him which was to be paid within one month after receipt of garments.  The pecuniary jurisdiction of District Court in Delhi is upto Rs. 5 Lacs, hence to bring the suit within jurisdiction of District Court, Jaspal Singh filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 5 Lacs against Rajat Sharma in the District Court of Delhi which was decreed in his favour.  Subsequently Jaspal Singh filed another suit against Rajat Sharma for the recovery of Rs. 3 Lacs, the balance amount of the contract.  The suit is objected by Rajat Sharma on maintainability and requested the Court to dismiss it.
Is the subsequent suit of Jaspal Singh maintainable ? Decide with the help of relevant provisions of Civil Procedure Code and the case law, if any.
(b)   X, a lady had taken a loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- from A.  She did not pay the loan amount within the agreed period.  A filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,50,000/- against X.  The suit was decreed in his favour.  A filed an execution petition but in the execution the decree was not satisfied.  A filed an application under Section 55 of the Civil Procedure Code for the arrest and detention of X.  X objected this application on the ground of its maintainability against her.
Are the objections of X justified in the circumstances of the above case?  Answer with the help of relevant provisions of Civil Procedure Code and the case law, if any.

Part-B

Q.3  (a)  one ms. Meghna, a widow of Rajan, was living with her father-in-law Ramesh Chander in a town.  One day Meghna was returning home from the market after taking some vegetables, when Raju and Babloo caught hold of her and dragged her in a vacant flat and raped her.  she came home.  When her husband's cousing brother Rana was passing her house, he heard her crying inside and on his questioning her, she told him that Raju and Babloo have raped her, and asked him to tell her father-in-law in his office.
Is the statement of Ms.  meghna to Rana relevant and admissible?  Answer with reference to relevant provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as also case law, if any.
(b)   The case of plaintiff is that he executed a promissory note on 1st January, 1970 in favour of Ram Narayan Das for Rs. Lacs which was due from the plaintiff.  On the same date it was agreed between them that the plaintiff would be the sole agent in three districts to sell certain Articles for 5 years at a certain rate of commission.  The plaintiff alleged that the defendant circumvented this agreement and sold goods directly or through others and demanded rendition of account and the defendant sued the plaintiff for the amount of the promissory note which was payable at night.  The plaintiff had evidence of the oral agreement which provided that the plaintiff's commission would be adjusted towards the liability under the promissory note and the plaintiff would pay if any amount remains due after adjustment of the commission at the end of the period of agency i.e. 5 years.  It was contended by the defendant that the oral evidence as to the terms of the written document is not admissible in evidence.
Comment on the plea of the defence and answer the question with reference to the relevant provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1982 and the case law if any.
Q. 4.  (a)  A and B were arrested by the Police of Gurdaspur on a charge of theft of jewellery in a house from the person of lady.  One day police remand of A & B was taken by the polilce from the Court to effectuate the recovery of stolen jewellery articles.  During police remand, A made a confession to police that, "I and B entered in the house by breaking a wall in the night and found a lady sleeping wearing plenty of jewels.  I put a piece of cloth on her mouth and B removed her jewels and then we came out of the house.  We distributed the stolen jewellery between us.  I hid the jewellery of my share in cupboard in my house which I can get recovered".
Which part of the statement of A is relevant and admissible and why the rest of the statement is inadmissible ?  Answer with reference to the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the case law, if any.
(b)   On categorical assurance by the Chief Secretary of U.P. Govt.  to exempt from Sales Tax for three years, M.P. Sugar Mills raised loan and set up a hydrogenation plant to manufacture Vanaspati.  Later on Govt.  announced that instead of total exemption, it would give partial concession in the Sales Tax @ 3-1/2%, 3% and 2-1/2% in the first, second and third year respectively.  After the said Mill started production in July, 1970 the government again changed its policy and refused any concession.  Thereupon the said Mill filed a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court that the U.P.  Govt. shall be stopped from denying the Sales Tax concession to the petitioner.
Decide whether the U.P. govt can be stopped from refusing the concession of Sales Tax to M.P. Sugar Mills in this case.  Answer the question with reference to the relevant provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the case law, if any.
Q.5.  (a)  Ashok and Hitlar carried on a business of household furnitures under the name and style of Ashoka-Hit Furnitures.  The partnership was dissolved in December, 1990 but Ashok continued to carry on the business under the same.  In 1992 ACM Company Ltd., which had not previously dealt with Ashoka-Hit firm, received an order to supply them with six rooms furniture.  The price was never paid, and the company obtained judgment against Ashoka-Hit Furnitures and sought to enforce it against Hitlar.  The only knowledge which the company had of Hitlar was that his name had appeared on some old headed note paper which had been used by Ashok without Hitlar's authority in confirming the order for the purchase of the furniture and which Hitlar had failed to destroy before he left the firm.  The trial Court held him liable against ACM Company Ltd.  on the principle of Holding Out.  Hitlar filed the appeal in the appellate Court.  The appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court.
(b)  A was in possession of a plot in Amritsar for a long time.  on 20.8.1978 he was out fo town and in his absence B took the possession of the plot.  On 10.1.1979, A filed a suit for possession of the said plot against B in the District Court of Amritsar.  B contested the suit on the ground that his father has left a Will bequeathing the said plot to him and clainted his right of possession.  The will is registered.  A could not produce any document regarding his title of the said plot but the filed a copy of his ration card, election identity card, driving licence and bills of electricity and water in his name.  All these documents were issued at the address of the said plot.  B denied the right of a to get the possession of the said plot.
What issues can be framed by the Court on the basis of above facts?  Is A entitled to get the possession of the said plot?  Decide this case giving reasonings in your judgment with the application of relevant law and the decided case law.
(c)   The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for Mandatory Injunction and Damages with the facts that the defendant has put a water pipe in his own wall and there is a leakage in the said water pipe which resulted in seepage in his house and has damaged his house very badly and the water is coming in his house through the wall of the defendant due to the said leakage.
Can this suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff ?  If yes, what can be the directions to the defendant ?  Decide with the help of relevant provisions of law and the decided case, if any.
Q.6.  (a)  The firm of Ram-Mohan & Company had two partners – a father and son.  The firm was being pressed by a creditor, and there was no money to meet the claim.  So, in consideration of the creditor for giving time to pay it was agreed that an assignment of the book debt to the creditor should be made.  The son consented to, but did not inform his father.  The deed of assignment purported to be made was between Ram & Mohan, trading under the style of firm of Ram Mohan Company.  In fact the father's name had been forged by the son.  Later on the firm became bankrupt, and the trustee in bankruptcy sought to set aside the deed on the ground that it had been executed by one partner only.
Decide this case stating the law and the decided cases.
(b)   A & B are the partners of an unregistered firm.  The arbitration clause is a part of the contract between the partners embodied in the partnership deed.  A petition under Arbitration Act is filed in the Court by one partner with the prayer for a declaration that the arbitration agreement contained in the partnership deed be filed in the Court by the other partner and a reference be made to arbitration accordingly.
Whether the present petition under the Arbitration Act is a proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract as between the two partners of an admittedly unregistered firm?  Decide with the help of relevant provisions of Indian Partnership Act and the case law, if any –
(a)    X, a trustee of a worship place, filed a suit against he defendants for declaration of his right to nominate a new Mahant and for a declaration that he is entitled to manage the shrine and to have worship done by another person, superseding the defendants who are incharge and are neglecting their duties.  The District Court of Madras dismissed the suit.  X filed the appeal in the Madras High Court.  High court dismissed the appeal with the decision that the office of trust cannot be separated from the properties to which it appertains and so a mere declaration cannot be asked for without seeking possession also.

Was the High Court justified in dismissing the appeal ? Answer with reference to relevant provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and with the help of case law.

Part-D

\Q. 7.(a)  X, a builder, contracts with A to erect and finish a flat for him before 30th June, 1997, in order that X may give possession of the flat by that time to B to whom A has contracted to let it.  X is informed of the contract between A and B at the time of entering into the agreement with A.  X promised to erect and finish the flat and hand over the possession to B by 30th June, 1997.  X builds the flat with a very low rate material as a result of which the flat falls down before the 30th June, 1997 and has to be rebuilt by A, who in consequence loses that rent which he was to have received from C and is obliged to make compensation to B for the breach of his contract.
What remedy do you advice to A against X?  Decide with the help of relevant provisions of law and the case law, if any.
(b)    A partnership firm consisting of two partners, mortgaged some properties of the firm to mortgagee by a simple mortgage.  Mortgagee bought a suit against the firm.  During the pendency of the suit one of the partners dies.  No legal representative of the deceased partner is brought on record by the mortgagee within the period of limitation.  The Court decreed the suit in part against the alive partner and dismissed the remaining suit against the deceased partner as abated.  The mortgagee filed an appeal against the decree before the High Court claiming that the entire suit be decreed in his favour on the ground that the properties of the firm were not mortgaged to him by the partners individually but this was a mortgage by the firm hence the partners of the firm are also liable personally.  The appeal was also dismissed by the High Court.
Were the trial Court and High Court justified in dismissing the suit in part and the appeal respectively?  Answer with reference to provisions of Transfer of Property Act and the case law, if any.
(c)   A sells sulphuric acid to B as commercially free from arsenic.  B uses it for making glucose, which he sells to brewers, and the persons who drink the beer made by the brewers are poisoned.  A does not know the purpose for which the acid is required.  B filed a suit against A for the breach of warranty and claimed the price of the acid, the value of the beer spoiled and the damages which he paid to the brewers and the damages for injury to the goodwill of his business.  A contested the suit on the ground that he was not told by B, for what purpose the sulphuric acid was to be used.
Decide the suit of B by framing the issues, with the help of relevant provisions of law and decided case law.
Q.8.  (a)  A took a loan of Rs. 5 lacs from X and executed a promissory note to this effect in favour of X.  B the defendant for consideration promised A to pay and discharge the promissory note to X.  A in terms of loan did not return the loan amount to X.  X demanded the money from A but A told X that the loan amount shall be returned to him by B as he has promised.  X filed a suit against B for the recovery of Rs. 5 lacs, the amount of loan given to A.  B contested the suit on the ground that he is not liable to pay any amount to X as no promise to pay the loan of A has been made by him to X.
What issues can be framed by the Court on the basis of the above facts ? whether the suit of X can be decreed against B.  Decide with the help of relevant provisions of law and the case law, if any.
(b)   The vendee paid the larger amount of the consideration for sale of a house and promised to pay the remaining amount after some time.  the vendor believing him executed the sale deed in his favour and got it registered and also handed over the possession of the house to him and like this the title was passed in favour of the vendee.  But the vendee failed to pay the remaining amount of the consideration of sale within the agreed period.  The vendor filed a suit against vendee in the Court for the possession and to declare the sale deed null and void.
Can the suit of the vendor be decreed against vendee in the said form or you advise him to file some other suit ?  Decide with the help of relevant provisions of law and the decided cases.
(c).  AB Traders placed an order to Siya Ram Steels for the supply of Iron Bars with the condition to send the same through Punjab Road Carriers on a specified date.  Siya Ram Steels called a truck from Punjab Road Carries at their factory and loaded the required Iron bars in the said truck as per the condition.  On the way to AB traders, the said truck met with an accident and the Iron bars were also destroyed in the said accident.  Siya Ram Steels filed a suit for the recovery of the price of Iron Bars against AB Traders which was contested on the ground that actually they did not receive the contracted Iron Bars, so they are not liable to pay any amount to Siya Ram Steels towards the alleged supply of Iron Bars.
Decide the suit of Siya Ram Steels with the help of relevant provisions of the Sale of goods Act and the case law, if any.

Part – E

Q.9.  (a)  The shop in question was let out by the landlord to Shri Pritam Singh.  Three years back pritam Singh died and his legal heirs occupied the said shop.  The landlord filed an eviction petition against the L.Rs. of late Shri Pritam Singh on the ground that the L. Rs. Of Pritam Singh have ceased to occupy the said shop without any cause since the death of original tenant Pritam Singh.  The contention of the L. Rs. Of Pritam Singh is that the plea of non-occupation of the premises is incorrect.  The landlord led the evidence of a draftsman who said that he went at the shop but found it closed.  In his cross-examination he said that he is seeing the shop closed almost daily.  The other witness of the landlord is a postman who deposed that he had been delivering the post to Shri Pritam Singh at his shop when he was alive but after his death he found the shop closed.  L.R. of Shri Pritam Singh examined himself in rebuttal and said that he is running his business in the said shop since the date of death of Pritam Singh.  In cross-examination he said that he has no electric meter at the shop.
Under the above stated facts write a judgment on the petition of eviction filed by the landlord against the LRs of Pritam Singh, with the help of relevant provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the case law, if any.
(b)   Mortgagor's equity or redemption happens to have vested by the purchase, in a person who is also a prior mortgagee, and that person as the owner of the equity of redemption brought a suit to redeem a puisne mortgage.  The puisne mortgagee also wants to redeem the prior mortgage and he also filed a suit for redemption of prior mortgage.
Whose right shall be preferred by the Court and on what ground?  Decide with the help of relevant provisions of law and the case law, if any.
(c)   Can a Subordinate Judge hear the appeals from the decrees or orders of other Subordinate Judge, under the Punjab Courts Act?
(d)   Who can distribute the business to Civil Courts in Punjab under Punjab courts Act?
Q.10.  (a)  Kartar Singh is a tenant in the house of Ms.  Atma Kaur for a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- Ms. Atma Kaur filed an eviction petition against Kartar Singh in the Court of Learned Rent Controller, Bhatinda on the ground of non-payment of rent of 4 months besides house-tax.  A notice was stated to have been served regarding the enhancement of rent on account of the house-tax.  Kartar Singh contended that the landlady has refused to accept the rent for the last 4 months and is demanding the enhanced rent on the ground tha Kartar Singh alone is living in the demised premises, so he was to pay the house tax also.  Kartar Singh deposited the rent of 4 months in the Court on the first date.  The eviction petition was allowed by the Rent Controller.  Kartar Singh preferred an appeal against his eviction before the learned Appellate Authority, Bhatinda who dismissed the appeal on the ground the devoid of merits.  Kartar Singh then filed the revisions petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.  The Hon'ble High court allowed the revision and set aside the order of eviction.
Is the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court justified in allowing the revision petition ? Answer with reference to the relevant provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the case law.
(b)   A Hindu testator devised some property in his two sons to be divided equally with a condition that if any of them will try to sell his share or to part with possession of his share within an intial period of 10 years after his death, he shall lose his share and thereupon the entire property shall devolve on the other son.  One son let out two rooms out of his share to a tenant after 6 years of the death of his father.  Does his share forfeited by this Act?  Decide with the help of relevant provisions of Transfer of Property Act and the case law, if any.
(c)  In what cases a Subordinate Judge can exercise the powers of a District Court under the Punjab Courts Act?
(d)  Who is empowered to appoint Special Judges and the benches under the Punjab Courts Act?