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
In a suit for money a decree is passed by consent whereby the defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 35,000. It is further declared by the decree that the plaintiff should have a first charge on certain immovable property belonging to the defendant. Is the plaintiff entitled to have the property sold in execution of the decree without institution a regular suit for sale on the charge?
Yes, because there being no mortgage or charge prior to the decree, the decree cannot be said to have been obtained ‘for the payment of money in satisfaction of a claim arising under the mortgage’ within the meaning of O. 34 r 14
No, because there being no mortgage or charge prior to the decree, the decree can be said to have been obtained ‘for the payment of money in satisfaction of a claim arising under the mortgage’ within the meaning of O. 34 r 14
The immovable property must have been made security for the payment of the money before the decree was obtained, otherwise the provision of this rule do not apply
None of these
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses