Your Answer : (Not Answered)

Correct Answer : C

The remedy is by instituting a suit under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Section 26 allows either party, or his representative in interest, to institute a suit to have an instrument rectified where, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, it does not express their real intention. Rectification can also be claimed in a pleading in a suit where a right under the instrument is in issue.

The Registration Act deals with registering documents, not correcting them, and Section 152 CPC corrects clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees and orders, not in the parties' own instruments. So the mistake can be rectified, and 'cannot be rectified' is wrong.

Your Answer : (Not Answered)

Correct Answer : B

The period is two years from the date the perversion first becomes known to the person injured.

Article 90 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a period of two years for a suit against one who, having a right to use property for specific purposes, perverts it to other purposes, and time begins when the perversion first becomes known to the person injured thereby.

One, three and four years keep the right starting point but give the wrong period for this tort.

Your Answer : (Not Answered)

Correct Answer : C

The period is three years from the date of death of the ward.

Article 60 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 governs suits to set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward. When the ward himself sues, time runs for three years from his attaining majority. When the suit is by the ward's legal representative and the ward dies before attaining majority, the period is three years from the date of the ward's death.

The date the ward would have become major applies to neither case, the date of knowledge is not the starting point used, and twelve years from the transfer is not the period for this suit.

Your Answer : (Not Answered)

Correct Answer : B

The suit is instituted when application for leave to sue as a pauper is made.

Section 3(2)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that a suit by a pauper (now called an indigent person) is instituted when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made. Limitation is therefore counted up to the date of the application, not the later date when it is granted.

Presentation of the plaint to the proper officer is the rule for an ordinary suit (Section 3(2)(a)), so it does not fit a pauper suit, and waiting for the grant would penalise the applicant for the court's delay.

Your Answer : (Not Answered)

Correct Answer : A

Only Conclusion I follows. Statement II says that legal disability is discussed in Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so the provisions regarding legal disability are discussed in that Act, which is Conclusion I.

Conclusion II says that the bar of limitation is in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. Statement I says only that the bar of limitation is discussed in the Evidence Act, with no section, so the section number is not given by the statements; in fact, the bar of limitation is Section 3 of the Limitation Act, not the Evidence Act. Conclusion II does not follow.

Your Answer : (Not Answered)

Correct Answer : C

The exclusion of time in legal proceedings, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is in Part III, headed computation of the period of limitation, which covers Sections 12 to 24 and also deals with the exclusion of time and with fresh periods of limitation.

Part II covers the limitation of suits, appeals and applications, Sections 3 to 11, with the bar of limitation and the legal disability provisions. Part IV deals with the acquisition of ownership by possession, and Part I is only the preliminary part with the short title and definitions.

Your Answer : (Not Answered)

Correct Answer : A

Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with the extinguishment of the right to property: at the determination of the period limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to that property is extinguished.

The other options are headings of other sections. The exclusion of time in legal proceedings is Section 14 and the effect of acknowledgment or payment by another person is Section 20, so they are in the part of the Act on computation of the period and fresh periods. Suits for compensation for acts not actionable without special damage are dealt with in Section 23 on continuing wrongs. None is Section 27.

Your Answer : (Not Answered)

Correct Answer : A

The definition of a bond as an instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another on condition that the obligation is void if a specified act is performed is in Section 2(d) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the definitions section.

The neighbouring clauses define other terms: 2(a) is the applicant, 2(b) is the defendant, and 2(c) is the easement. So the bond definition belongs to clause (d), as the key states.

Your Answer : (Not Answered)

Correct Answer : B

The bar of limitation is the heading of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963: subject to Sections 4 to 24, every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period is to be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.

Section 7 deals with the disability of one of several persons, and Section 15 with the exclusion of time in certain other cases. They are exceptions to the bar, which is why they are listed. Section 28 is not the provision for the bar of limitation.

Your Answer : (Not Answered)

Correct Answer : C

All three descriptions are included in the term applicant under Section 2 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so the answer is 1, 2 and 3. The definition says that applicant includes a petitioner, 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.

The options naming only 1, only 1 and 2, or only 2 each omit at least one of the three limbs of the definition, so they are incomplete.

Your Answer : (Not Answered)

Correct Answer : A

The injunction may be granted to enforce the negative covenant.

A contract for personal service cannot be specifically enforced, so the court will not order Ajeet Singh to sing for the company. But Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that where a contract contains an affirmative agreement coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, the court may grant an injunction to perform the negative agreement even though it cannot compel performance of the affirmative one. This is the rule of the English case Lumley v. Wagner (1852), where an opera singer was restrained from singing elsewhere.

The 'must be refused' option overlooks Section 42, compelling him to sing is barred, and damages are not the only relief where an express negative covenant exists.