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
X, a Hindu, dies leaving a widow. The widow makes a gift to her brother B, of certain property belonging to her husband. After the death of the widow, A, alleging that he and X were members of a joint family sues B for a declaration that he is entitled to the property by right of survivorship. The court finds that A and X were separate, and A’s suit is dismissed. Subsequently, A sues B for the recovery of the same property, alleging that as the nearest reversionary heir of X, he became entitled to the property on the death of the widow, and that the alienation made by her in favour of B was not binding upon him.
The suit is a case of res judicata. A might and ought to have set up the title by heir ship as a ground of attack in the former suit. However it cannot be deemed to have been ‘directly and substantially in issue, but it will also be deemed to have been ‘heard and finally decided’ against A
The suit is barred as res judicata. A might and ought to have set up the title by heir ship as a ground of attack in the former suit. It will therefore be deemed to have been ‘directly and substantially in issue, and it cannot be deemed to have been ‘heard and finally decided’ against A
The suit is barred as res judicata. A might and ought to have set up the title by heir ship as a ground of attack in the former suit. It will therefore be deemed to have been ‘directly and substantially in issue, and it will also be deemed to have been ‘heard and finally decided’ against A
None of these
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses