send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
A, alleging that he is the proprietor of a village, sues B, C and D for ejectment. The defence is that A is not the proprietor and that part of the village belongs to B, C and D, and the rest to X, Y and Z. The court finds that A is not the proprietor, and A’s suit is dismissed. A then sues, X, Y and Z and also B, C and D for declaration that he is the proprietor of the village and for possession.
The question of A’s title to the village is res judicata so as to bar the suit against B, C and D, who were parties to the former suit, but it is not res judicata so as to bar the suit against X, Y and Z who were not parties to the former suit
It cannot be said that B, C and D litigated in the former suit in respect of a private right claimed in common for them and X, Y and Z. They set up only their own right to a part of the property and as to the rest they alleged that it belonged to X, Y and Z
Both (A) and (B)
None of these
- Option 1:
- The concept of res judicata means that a matter that has been finally decided by a competent court cannot be pursued again by the same parties.
- Since B, C, and D were parties to the first suit, the determination of A’s title against them is res judicata. However, X, Y, and Z were not parties to the former suit, so res judicata does not apply to them.
- Option 2:
- B, C, and D defended their portion of the property individually and not on behalf of X, Y, and Z.
- They only claimed a defense for their part and mentioned X, Y, and Z regarding the remainder.
- Option 3:
- This option suggests both above observations are relevant, recognizing the applicability of res judicata to B, C, and D and the distinct status of X, Y, and Z.
- Option 4:
- This dismisses all statements, but the context provided indicates otherwise.
Answer: Option 3 - Both (A) and (B)
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses