HP Judicial Services (Prelims) Mock - 3 (Civil Law - II) - Judiciary Exams MCQ

A surety is a person or entity who guarantees the performance of another person's obligations or promises. The surety is responsible for fulfilling those obligations if the principal debtor fails to do so.
A surety can be discharged, or released from their obligations, in the following circumstances:
By release or discharge of the principal debtor: If the principal debtor's obligations are released or discharged, the surety's obligations are also terminated. For example, if the principal debtor pays off the debt, reaches a settlement, or is released from the contract, the surety is no longer liable.
By variance in the terms of the contract: If there is a material change or variance in the terms of the contract without the surety's consent, the surety may be discharged from their obligations. This change could significantly alter the nature of the surety's liability or increase the risk involved.
Therefore, both situations mentioned in options 1 and 2 can result in the discharge of a surety.

As per Section 71 of the Indian Contract Act, a person who finds goods belonging to another, and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. The bailee is responsible for the care and custody of the goods and must take reasonable steps to return them to the rightful owner. The bailee may be entitled to compensation for any expenses incurred in the care of the goods.

Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriage. The section reads as follows:
(1) Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void under Section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act.
(2) Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage under Section 12, any child begotten or conceived before the decree is made, who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if at the date of the decree it had been dissolved instead of being annulled, shall be deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the decree of nullity.
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 12, any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents, in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents.
Thus, option 1 is the answer.

As per Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Sections 11, 3(f) and 5(v), marriage solemnized within Sapinda relationship defined under Section 3(f) of the Act is always declared as void marriage. If wife's parents and husband's parents have common ancestor (third line of ascent through mother and fifth line through father), then such marriage is void as it is contrary to provisions of Section 5(v) of the Act. Marriage within prohibited degrees of relationship is void.

Article 113 of the Limitation Act provides that the period of limitation for suits not specifically provided under the Schedule is three years from the date when the right to sue accrues.

Section 13 of the Limitation Act provides for exclusion of time in cases where leave to sue or appeal as a pauper is applied for. According to the section, in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit or appeal in any case where an application for leave to sue or appeal as a pauper has been made and rejected, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting in good faith his application for such leave shall be excluded, and the court may, on payment of the court fees prescribed for such suit or appeal, treat the suit or appeal as having the same force and effect as if the court fees had been paid in the first instance.

The Limitation Act, 1963 bars the remedy for enforcing a right. It does not bar the right itself, but only limits the time within which the remedy for enforcing that right can be sought. The Act prescribes a time limit within which a legal action can be filed for enforcing a right. Once this time limit or "limitation period" has expired, the remedy for enforcing the right is lost, and the person who has the right can no longer enforce it through legal means. Therefore, option 4, "Remedy" is the correct answer.

The transfer of immovable property made without consideration with the intent to defraud a subsequent transferee is voidable at the option of such subsequent transferee under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA).
According to Section 53 of the TPA, any transfer of immovable property made with the intent to defraud a subsequent transferee shall be voidable at the option of the person who has been defrauded. This means that the transfer is not automatically void, but it can be declared void by the person who has been defrauded.
It is important to note that this provision applies only if the transfer is made without consideration and with the intent to defraud a subsequent transferee. If the transfer is made for consideration, it will not be voidable under Section 53 of the TPA.

Section 81 of the Transfer of Property Act provides for marshalling securities. According to the provision, if the owner of two or more properties mortgages them to one person and then mortgages one or more of the properties to another person, the subsequent mortgagee is, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, entitled to have the prior mortgage debt satisfied out of the property or properties not mortgaged to him, so far as the same will extend, but not so as to prejudice the rights of the prior mortgagee or of any other person who has for consideration acquired an interest in any of the properties.

Provisions as to eviction of tenants, under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, are described in Section 14. Clause 1 of the section states that a tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise, whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Clause 2 states that a landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied, he may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application.

In Dayawanti v. Kirpa Ram case, court has held that it is obligatory on the part of the Controller to process an application filed for fixation of fair rent to its logical end. The court held that, '... it is the duty of the Rent Controller to find out the fair rent and that, if any evidence is available, then the Rent Controller should record that evidence and the duty to make the enquiry regarding the fair rent is of the Rent Controller ... it is the duty of the Rent Controller to make an enquiry in the matter so that he may be able to fix a fair rent in accordance with law.'

Section 150 of the Indian Contract Act provides for bailor's duty to disclose faults in goods bailed. According to the section, if the goods are bailed for hire, the bailor is responsible for such damage, whether he was or was not aware of the existence of such faults in the goods bailed.

To convert a proposal into a promise, the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified. This means that the acceptance should be unconditional, i.e. without any reservations or conditions. The accepting party must agree to the proposal in its entirety without any conditions attached. There should be a clear and unequivocal commitment to fulfill the terms of the proposal, creating a binding promise. This is provided for in section 7(1) of the Indian Contract Act.

Anil Kumar Jain (Appellant) and Maya Jain (Respondent) filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the consent given by the parties at the time of filing of the joint petition for divorce by mutual consent has to subsist till the second stage when the petition comes up for orders and a decree for divorce is finally passed and it is only the Supreme Court, which in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, can pass orders to do complete justice to the parties.

The Limitation Act, 1963 was enacted on 5^th October, 1963 and came into force on 1^st January, 1964 for the purpose of consolidating and amending the legal principles relating to limitation of suits and other legal proceedings, and prescribes different periods of limitation for suits, appeals, and applications.

According to Article 63 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for suits relating to immovable property for foreclosure by a mortgagee is thirty years and this period begins to run from the date when the money secured by the mortgage becomes due.

Under section 19 of the Limitation Act, where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made.

The law relating to mortgage by deposit of title deeds in India is derived from the English law of equitable mortgage. It is, therefore, relevant to analyse the concept of equitable mortgage in English law. Thus, a mortgage by deposit of title deeds can be made by the debtor by depositing his title deeds with the creditor as security for any advance made to him or for any future advances, without a single piece of paper being written or signed. In India, such a mortgage comes under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 says that the government by official notification in gazette will notify the place where title deeds need to be submitted.

All the three means, i.e. gift (Section 122), sell (Section 54) and exchange (Section 118) are covered under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 but will is covered under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. As per the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a will is a legal declaration of the intention of the testator, with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death.

The doctrine which requires that the transferor must deliver the subsequently acquired property to the transferee, who acted upon his false representation and did harm to himself by paying money for what he could not get, is called doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel. Doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel is contained in Section 43 of T. P. Act.

The State Government promulgated the H.P. Urban Rent Control Ordinance on 17^th August, 1987 and it received the assent of the President of India on 20^th October, 1987.

Section 2 of the HPURCA (Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act) expressly states that the order of succession in the event of death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy shall be as follows:—
(a) Firstly, his surviving spouse;
(b) Secondly, his son or daughter, or both, if there is no surviving spouse, or if the surviving spouse did not ordinarily live with the deceased person as a member of his family up to the date of his death;
(c) Thirdly, his parent(s), if there is no surviving spouse, son or daughter of the deceased person, or if such surviving spouse, son, daughter or any of them, did not ordinarily live in the premises as a member of the family of the deceased person up to the date of his death; and
(d) Fourthly, his daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre-deceased son, if there is no surviving spouse, son, daughter or parent(s) of the deceased person or if such surviving spouse, son, daughter or parent(s), or any of them, did not ordinarily live in the premises as a member of the family of the deceased person up to the date of his death.

According to section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, A contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another—
(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or
(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.

In case of a conflict of jurisdiction of the courts, the incidence of a contract is governed by the law of the place where the contract is made. This principle is known as the "lex loci contractus" or the law of the place of contracting. It determines the substantive rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. The law of the place where the contract is made typically governs issues such as the formation of the contract, interpretation of its terms, and the validity and enforceability of the contract.

Until the acceptance is communicated to the offeror (in this case, "A"), the acceptance is not considered legally binding. The act of posting the letter of acceptance does not complete the communication of acceptance, and therefore, "B" can still change his mind and revoke the acceptance before it reaches "A." Once the acceptance is received by "A," the contract becomes legally binding, and "B" cannot revoke the acceptance.

Undue influence refers to a situation where one party exerts excessive pressure or influence over another party, thereby overpowering their free will and ability to make independent decisions. In this scenario, if the master asks his servant to buy his cycle at less than the market price through undue influence, the servant can avoid the contract on the grounds that the agreement was made under unfair and coercive circumstances.
Coercion (option 1) typically involves the use of threats or force to compel someone to act against their will. If the servant was forced or threatened into buying the cycle, coercion could also be a valid ground to avoid the contract.
Fraud (option 2) refers to intentional misrepresentation or deception made by one party to induce another party to enter into a contract. If the master intentionally misled or deceived the servant regarding the value or price of the cycle, fraud could also be a valid ground to avoid the contract.
Mistake (option 4) generally involves an error or misunderstanding regarding a material aspect of the contract. However, based on the scenario provided, there is no mention of a mistake made by either party that would invalidate the contract.
Therefore, in this specific scenario, the most appropriate ground for the servant to avoid the contract would be undue influence (option 3).

The natural guardian of a minor boy is the father and after him, the mother. However, the custody of a minor under the age of 5 years is to be ordinarily with the mother.

Section 15 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, provides for the right to recover immediate possession of premises to certain persons. Options 1, 2 and 4 are provided for in clauses 1, 2 and proviso to clause 2 of the section. However, the right to recover immediate possession of tenanted premises does not accrue to a specified landlord retiring from the armed forces.

Section 28 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act states that the High Court may, on an application made to it or otherwise by order, transfer any proceeding pending before any appellate authority to another appellate authority and the appellate authority, to whom the proceeding is transferred, may, subject to any special directions in the order of transfer, dispose of the proceeding.
Provision for leases of vacant buildings is given under section 19 of the Act.
Provision for right to recover immediate possession of premises to certain persons is given under Section 15 of the Act.
Receipt to be given for fair rent paid is given under Section 20 of the Act. Thus, option 2 provides the correct match.