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
The assignee of the holder of a life estate sued for declaration of title and injunction, immediately after the death of the life estate-holder. The suit for declaration of title was decreed, but the suit for injection was dismissed after holding that the possession was with the defendants only. Subsequently, the assignee of the life estate filed a suit for possession on the strength of the title. The bar of O. 2, r 2 was raised by the defendant.
The bar under O. 2, r 2 is not applicable to the subsequent suit
In the first suit he plaintiffs could not claim the recovery of possession as they had sought only an injunction, claiming themselves to be in possession
Both (A) and (B)
None of these
- Option 1: The bar under Order 2, Rule 2 is not applicable to the subsequent suit.
- Order 2, Rule 2 prevents splitting claims and requires that all reliefs be claimed in one suit if they arise from the same cause of action.
- In the first suit, the focus was on declaration and injunction, whereas the subsequent suit is focused on the possession based on title. These are considered different causes of action.
- Option 2: In the first suit, the plaintiffs could not claim the recovery of possession as they had sought only an injunction, claiming themselves to be in possession.
- The first suit was based on an injunction due to the belief that they were in possession. This is different from a possession claim which would follow a declaration of title.
- Option 3: Both (A) and (B).
- This combines the reasoning from both options and is correct due to the distinct focus of the two suits as per legal provisions.
- Option 4: None of these.
- This is incorrect since either Option 1 or Option 2, or both, are applicable.
Correct Answer: Option 3 - Both (A) and (B).
.
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses