ObjectiveMcq
Print Protected
This page is protected for print. Use the website to view the content.
Under the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for filing an application for an order to set aside an abatement is:
60 days
90 days
120 days
None of the above.
Article 121 of the Limitation Act, 1963, deals with the period of limitation for filing an application to set aside an abatement under the same Code. According to this article, thelimitation period for setting aside an abatement is 60 days from the date of abatement.
Under the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for filing a suit for compensation for false imprisonment begins to run from the time:
When imprisonment ends
When imprisonment begins
When prosecution terminates
None of the above.
Article 73 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, deals with the limitation period for seeking compensation for false imprisonment. According to this article, thelimitation period for filing a suit for compensation for false imprisonment is one year.
Where the prescribed period of limitation for any application is expiring on a holiday, the application:
Should be made a day prior to holiday
May be made on the day when the court re-opens
May be made within thirty days of re-opening of the court
May be made on any day after the court re-opens.
When the prescribed period of limitation for any application is expiring on a holiday , the law allows for the application to be made on the day when the court re-opens.
In Craft Centre v. Koncherry Coir Factories (1990), what did the Kerala High Court emphasize regarding the limitation period?
The plaintiff's duty is to convince the Court that the suit is within time.
If the suit is out of time, the plaintiff is not required to plead or prove acknowledgments relied upon to save the limitations.
The provision of Section 3 regarding limitation is discretionary and not mandatory.
If a suit is barred by time, the court is not obligated to dismiss it even at the appellate stage.
In Craft Centre v. Koncherry Coir Factories (1990), the Kerala High Court emphasized that the plaintiff has the duty to convince the Court that the suit is within the limitation period.
Assertion: The acquisition of ownership by possession under Chapter IV of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides a mechanism for resolving disputes over property rights arising from long-term possession.
Reasoning: This mechanism does not promote legal certainty and stability in property transactions by recognizing and regularizing ownership based on practical realities and the passage of time.
Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A
Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
A is true, but R is false
A is false, but R is true
Is true, but R is false. *The assertion correctly identifies that the acquisition of ownership by possession, also known as adverse possession, offers a mechanism for resolving disputes over property rights that arise from long-term possession.
Section 23 of the Limitation Act deals with:
Suits for compensation for acts not actionable without special damage
Suits for compensation for acts causing general damage
Suits for compensation for acts causing immediate damage
Suits for compensation for acts causing mental anguish
Section 23 deals with suits for compensation for acts that do not give rise to a cause of action unless some specific injury actually results. Nature of the Suit: This section applies to suits for compensation for acts that do not immediately give rise to a cause of action.
The statutes of limitation are premised on which fundamental legal maxim?
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt
Actori incumbit onus probandi
Frustra probatur quod probatum non relevant
Nemo potest esse tenens et dominus
'Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt' * Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt: This Latin maxim translates to "the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights.
For the purpose of Limitation Act, 1963, a suit in the case of a pauper, is instituted;
When the plaint is presented to the proper office.
When application for leave to sue as a pauper is made.
When the application seeking leave to sue as a pauper is granted.
None of the above.
Section 3 of limitation Act 1963 deals with Bar of limitation. (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.
Continuing breaches and torts is provided under which section of the Limitation Act, 1963?
Section 20
Section 21
Section 22
Section 23
Section 22. * Section 22 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provides for Continuing breaches and torts.
What is the period of limitation for a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), to have the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or appellant or of a deceased defendant or respondent, made a party?
Thirty days
forty-five days
sixty days
ninety days
Ninety days. * Article 120 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides for a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), to have the legalrepresentative of a deceased plaintiff or appellant or of a deceased defendant or respondent, made a party.
The limitation period for filing a suit by a person dispossessed of immovable property is
Within six months from the date of dispossession
Within six months from the date on which the petitioner comes to know of the dispossession
Within twelve months from the date of possession
Within twelve months from the date on which the petitioner comes to know of the dispossession
Specifically, this is covered underSection 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in India. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act deals with a suit by a person who is dispossessed of immovable property without his consent and without the authority of law.
The period of limitation for filing a suit to set aside transfer of property made by a guardian of a ward, by the ward's legal representative, when the ward dies before attaining majority, is;
Three years from the date when the ward would have become major.
Three years from the date when such fact comes to the notice of the legal representative.
Three years from the date of death of the ward.
Twelve years from the date of the transfer.
THE SCHEDULE (PERIODS OF LIMITATION) [See sections 2(j) and 3] * PART IV.—SUITS RELATING TO DECREES AND INSTRUMENTS 59. To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract. | Three years.
Under Limitation act, Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in Court without jurisdiction is stipulated in:
Section 14
Section 16
Section 15
Section 13
Section 14 Section 14 of the legislation discusses the principle of not including certain periods when calculating the time limit (also known as the "period of limitation") for initiating lawsuits or applications.
As per Limitation Act, what happens to a person's right to property if they do not initiate a suit for possession within the limited period?
Their right to the property is extended
Their right to the property is transferred to the defendant
Their right to the property is extinguished
Their right to the property is suspended
Section 27 of the Limitation Act states that when the limited period for initiating a suit for possession of any property expires without the person taking legal action, their right to the property is extinguished.
In the case of a continuing breach of contract or a continuing tort, when does a fresh period of limitation begin to run?
Only when the breach or tort is initially discovered
At the time when the breach or tort first occurs
At every moment during which the breach or tort continues
Only when legal action is first considered
Section 22 of the Limitation Act deals with Continuing breaches and torts. Continuing Breach of Contract or Tort: Applies when a breach of contract or a tort (civil wrong) is ongoing and not a one-time occurrence.
When a new defendant is added in the suit, the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted against him from
the date of his addition
the date of institution of the suit
the date on which issues are framed
the date on which summons are served on him
The date of his addition. Section 21* of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant.
The period of limitation for filing a suit to set aside transfer of property made by a guardian of a ward, by the ward's legal representative, when the ward dies before attaining majority, is;
Three years from the date when the ward would have become major.
Three years from the date when such fact comes to the notice of the legal representative.
Three years from the date of death of the ward.
Twelve years from the date of the transfer.
THE SCHEDULE (PERIODS OF LIMITATION) [See sections 2(j) and 3] * PART IV.—SUITS RELATING TO DECREES AND INSTRUMENTS 59. To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract. | Three years.
Limitation period prescribed in filling a suit by a mortgagor to recover possession of immovable property mortgaged
20 years
12 years
10 years
30 years
0 years. * Article 61 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides for the limitation period prescribed for filling a suit by a mortgagor to recover possession of immovable property mortgaged.
In Limitation Act, what is included in the definition of "applicant" according to the Act?
Only the petitioner
Any person from or through whom an applicant derives his right to apply
Any person whose estate is represented by the applicant as executor, administrator, or other representative
All of the above
Ll of the above As per Section 2(a) "applicant" includes not only the petitioner but also any person from or through whom an applicant derives his right to apply, and any person whose estate is represented by the applicant as executor, administrator, or other representative.
According to the ruling in Collector and Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner v. Darshan Singh and others (AIR 1999), what stance did the court take regarding the non-availability of the case file to the State counsel or Panel lawyer?
Non-availability of the case file is considered a valid ground for condonation of inordinate delay.
Non-availability of the case file does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of inordinate delay.
Non-availability of the case file is only considered a valid ground for condonation of delay if the delay is minimal.
Non-availability of the case file is a valid ground for condonation of delay, subject to the discretion of the court.
In Collector and Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner v. Darshan Singh and others (AIR 1999) , the court held that the non-availability of the case file to the State counsel or Panel lawyer is not considered a valid ground for condonation of inordinate delay.
