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 filed a suit for a declaration that, he was the adopted son of the last owner, and alleged in the plaint that he was in possession of the properties and the court held that his adoption was established, but that he was not in possession, and therefore, dismissed the suit as barred under s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 (Now replaced by the Specific Relief Act).
The second suit for possession would be barred under r 2
The second suit for possession was not barred under r 2
Either (A) or (B)
None of these
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses