Delhi main Civil Law ll exam 2008


Q.  1.  A had let out his premises to B.  As a term of the said letting B had deposited three months rent with A by way of security deposit.  Nothing was agreed or provided as to when the same would be refundable by A to B.  B vacated the premises on 1st January 2000.  However A did not refund the security deposit.  B on 3rd March, 2004 for the first time demanded security deposit from A and upon failure of A to pay the same, on 1st August 2004 instituted a suit for recovery of the amount of security deposit from A.  A set up a plea that the claim in suit was barred by time and on which plea a preliminary issue was framed.  B contended that the security deposit was refundable on demand.
Decide the said preliminary issue.
Q.  2  A entered into an agreement to sell his house to B.  It was a term of the said agreement that upon failure of A to perform his part of the agreement, he shall be liable to pay to B double the amount of earnest money paid by B to A at the time of agreement to sell.  The sale was to be completed on or before 15th January, 2008.  A failed to perform his part of the agreement.  B instituted a suit in or about first week of Febrary, 2008 for permanent injunction against A for restraining A from selling the property to any other person.  Interim injunction was not granted to B.  B thereafter did not pursue the said suit and withdrew the said suit in or about March, 2008.  B thereafter wrote to A that since A was in breach of agreement, A should pay double the amount of earnest money to B.  A did not reply to the said letter.  B thereafter in or about 1st week of August, 2008 instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell against A and filed an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, CPC for restraining A during the pendency of the suit for selling the property.
Decide the said application.
Q.  3  A has instituted a suit for recovery of price of goods sold to B.  B is contesting the said suit denying any sale of goods by A.  Issue have been framed in the suit.  However, before the trial begins, A moves an application under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act for permission to lead secondary evidence qua the invoice and delivery challans vide which goods are stated to have been sold and delivered to B.  it is the contention of A that at the time of institution of the suit, photocopies thereof were made and filed in the court but the originals thereof have been taken away by his employee earlier working with him and who has since left his employment.  B files a reply to this application denying that the originals existed or that the photocopies filed are the true photocopies or that the originals have been taken away by any ex employee of A.  the application is taken up for hearing before he recording of evidence begins.  Decide the said application.
Q.  4  A has let out his shop to B at a rent of Rs. 100 per month in 2004.  At the time of letting a documents on requisite stamp per is executed by B only recording the terms and conditions of letting.  One of the terms is that B shall not change the shutter and the show window of the shop.  In another clause it is mentioned that B has taken the shop on rent for a period of 11 months only.  A, finding that B has made preparation for changing the shutter and show widow of the shop institutes a suit for permanent injunction to restrain B from doing so.  A in this regard relief upon the aforesaid document.  B takes a plea that the aforesaid document being unregistered cannot be looked into by the court.
Decide the said objection of B.  Also comment as to whether the position would be different if the said document had been signed by both A and B.
Q.  5  In a suit by A against b several issues are framed, onus of which is on B, the defendant.  A after examining his witnesses closes his evidence.  Thereafter B leads evidence.  After the conclusion of the evidence of B, A applies for leading evidence in rebuttal and which is objected to by B.
Whether A should be allowed to lead rebuttal evidence.
Q.  6  A television channel on 26th January, 2005 makes adverse comments against certain officials while telecasting the gallantry awards.  It is broadcasted that gallantry awards have been conferred on the said officials in spite of their having been found and reported to have been indulging in corrupt and anti social activities.  The said person on 30th January, 2005 issued a notice to the television channel calling upon the said television channel to at prominent slot tender an apology to them within one month of the said notice failing which they will institute a suit for recovery of Rs. 50 lacs from the television channel.  The television channel fails to respond to the said legal notice.  The affected persons sent three successive legal notices to the television channel to the same effect on 21st May 2005, 15th December, 2005 and 30th January, 2006 and getting no response from the television channel, in or about first week of August 2006 institute a suit for recovery fo the damages in the sum of Rs. 50 lacs for defamation from the television channel.
Whether the said claim is within limitation?  Give reasons in short.
Q.  7.  The local authority of a city has developed a tourist spot in the city where artisans from different parts of the country are allowed to from time to time, for six months at a time exhibit and sell their wares.  The artisans are allotted shops of different sizes and are permitted to either remain in the said shops during nights also or to lock the same for security of their artifacts stored in the said shop.  At the time of allotment the artisans are made to sign a standard form agreement in which the artisans are described as the licensee and the local authority as the licensor.  The artisans have to pay the monthly charges besides common electricity and water charges for use of the said shops for the period of their license and the said charges are described as the license fee.  It is also a term of the said standard form agreement that nothing shall construe the said artisans as the tenants of the authoriry in the shops allotted to them and that the control and possession of the said shops shall be deemed to remain with the local authority.  One set of artisans who a: z allotted shops at the said spot, nearing the completion of six months of their allotment, together institute a suit against the authority contending that they are in exclusive possession of their respective shops and were made to sign for the reason of having no negotiating power and having no other venue to exhibit or sell their wares and that otherwise by virtue of payment of monthly charges, electricity and water charges, they have become a tenant of the authority in their respective shops and for restraining the authority from forcibly dispossessing them from their respective shops and from allotting the said shops to any other person.  They also apply under order 39, rules 1 and 2, CPC for the same relief.
Decide the said application of the plaintiffs.
Q.  8  A and B being two brothers are the owners having equal share of a commercial premises from where they are carrying their business.  A died in 1980 leaving a Will wherein he bequeaths all that he owns to his wife “W”.  B continues to carry on business from the said shop.  B in or about 1990 applies for mutation of the share of A in the said shop to his name on the basis of a registered relinquishment deed executed by A in favour of B prior to his death and notice of which application is given by the Municipal Authority to W as the legal heir of A, asking her no objection.  W neither gives her no objection nor writes back to the municipal authority.  W dies in 1994.  He only child, a son S receives notice in 1995 of another application by B for mutation of the share of A in the aforesaid premises to his name on the basis of the relinquishment deed aforesaid.  S institutes a suit in 1995 for declaration that the relinquishment deed on the basis whereof B is claiming mutation is forged and fabricated.  B sets up a plea of the claim in suit being barred by time.
Decide the said plea of B.
Q.  9.  B is tenant of A in a premises governed by Rent Control Act where under notwithstanding a contrat to the contrary B can be evicted from the premises only on a ground provided under the Rent Act.  A in or about January, 2008 institutes a petition for eviction against B on the ground of misuse of the tenancy premises by A.  A thereafter in or about August, 2008, while the earlier petition for eviction is still pending, institutes another petition for eviction against B on the ground of B having sub-let a portion of the tenancy premises in 2006 to C.  B in defence to the second petition states that the same is barred by Order 2, rule 2 and/or the proceedings therein are liable to be stayed under section 10 of the CPC.
Decide the said plea of B.
Q.  10.  A institutes a suit against B for permanent injunction restraining B from demolishing the boundary wall separating the open areas in front of adjoining houses of A and B.  Vide interim order in the said suit, B is so restrained.  While B is traveling abroad, her husband C demolishes the said wall in violation of order of interim injunction.  A files an application under Order 39, rule 2A CPC against C.
Whether C is liable under Order 39, rule 2A of the CPC.
Q.  11.  A applies for execution of a decree for possession against B.  during the pendency of the said execution.  B lies on 10th March, 2008.  A applies on 10th September, 2008 for substitution of legal representatives of B in the execution.
Is the said application within time?  Give reasons also.
Q.  12  A in or about 2004 enters into an agreement to purchase B’s house which at the time of agreement to sell is lying vacant.  A at the time of agreement to sell pays 90% of the agreed sale consideration to B and B puts A into vacant possession of the house.  However, no registered document is executed between the parties.  The balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid within one month against execution and registration of sale document by B in favour of A.  B writes several times to A to pay the balance sale consideration but A having been put into possession of the house and taking advantage of the same does not pay the balance sale consideration to B.  More than 5 years passed.  B thereafter sues A for possession of the said house on the ground that he is the owner thereof and there is no registered document in favour of A.
Decide the said suit with particular reference to the provisions of section 53A of the Trnasfer of Property Act read with section 49 of the Registration Act.
Q.  13.  On 8th August, 2005, a final decree of partition was passed and decree sheet was ordered to be drawn up.  The court thereafter called upon the parties to file the valuation report from Government approved valuers so that stamp duty for drawing up the decree could be calculated.  The court being not satisfied with the valudation report filed by the parties issued notice to the Chief Controlling Authority of the city for furnishing the valuation of the property.  The valuation report was received in January, 2008 which was accepted by the court and the parties were asked to deposit the stamp papers the decree was drawn up in March, 2008.  However, in accordance with the Order 20, rule 7 of the CPC, the decree though drawn up in March, 2008 bore the date of the judgment i.e., 8th August, 2005.  One of the parties applied for release of the original decree for enabling its registration.  The decree was finally delivered to that party on 3rd May, 2008 and the parties presented the decree for registration on 20th june, 2008.  The Registrar refused to register the same since the decree bore the date of 8th August, 2005 and the presentation was beyond four months of the said date.  The party thereafter applied to the court for directions to be issued to the sub-Registrar to register the decree.
Decide the said application.
Q.  14.  B is a tenant under A in a house.  B carries out certain unauthorized additions and alternations, contrary to terms of letting and in violation of municipal bye laws in the tenancy premises in the year 2000.  A immediately in the year 2000 itself gives notice to B to restore the premises to original condition.  B refuses to restore the premises and the unauthorized additions/alternations remain.  A in 2005 instituted a suit for mandatory injunction for directing B to remove the unauthorized additions alternations and restore the premises to original condition.  Preliminary issue is framed whether the suit is within time.  A contends that as long as the additions/ alternations remain, he has continuing cause of action.
Decide the said preliminary issue.
Q.  15  A is in adverse possession of property since 1990.  A in the year 2004 for consideration assigns his rights in the property to B and puts B into possession of the property.  C, the registered owner of the property in the year 2008 institutes a suit for possession of the property against B.  B sets up a plea of suit being barred by time for the reason of A having been in adverse possession to C, of the property since 1990.  C contends that B having come into possession of the property in 2004 only and suit for possession having been instituted within 12 years thereof, is within time.
Decide the controversy.
Q.  16.  A in the year 2000 institutes a suit for recovery of Rs. 15 lacs on the basis of three dishonored cheques of Rs. 5 lacs each, together with future interest against B.  while amendment of plaint to make the suit for recovery of Rs 20 lacs.  A contends that the fourth cheque of Rs. 5 lacs also given by B and dishonored remained stuck to one of the other three cheques filed in the court and escaped his attention and came to his knowledge only while cross examining B.  B opposed the application for amendment on the ground of – (i) same being barred under Order VI, rule 17 as amended by CPC Amendment Act 2002 (ii) the claim sought to be added by amendment being on the date of application, barred by time (iii) considering the claim in plaint as originally filed of Rs. 15 lacs with interest, on the date of application the monies if found due being more than Rs. 20 lacs and the amendment if allowed will take the claim in suit beyond maximum jurisdiction of that court of Rs. 20 lacs.
Decide the said application.