Suits in General Jurisdiction of the Courts and Res Judicata MCQ Quiz in मल्याळम - Objective Question with Answer for Suits in General Jurisdiction of the Courts and Res Judicata - സൗജന്യ PDF ഡൗൺലോഡ് ചെയ്യുക

The correct answer is 'All of the above'

Key Points

• Challenging a foreign judgment under Sec. 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) in India:
  • Section 13 of the C.P.C. provides grounds on which a foreign judgment can be challenged in India.
  • These grounds ensure that judgments from foreign courts are fair and just before they are enforced in India.
  • The grounds include:
    • Proceedings being opposed to natural justice: This means the judgment can be challenged if the proceedings in the foreign court were not conducted fairly, denying any party a chance to present their case.
    • Being obtained by fraud: If the foreign judgment was obtained through fraudulent means, it can be contested in India.
    • Competency of the Court pronouncing the judgment: The judgment can be challenged if the foreign court did not have the jurisdiction or authority to pronounce the judgment.

Additional Information

• Enforcement of foreign judgments in India:
  • For a foreign judgment to be enforceable in India, it must be conclusive as per Indian law.
  • Section 14 of the C.P.C. provides a presumption that the foreign judgment is pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction unless proved otherwise.
  • However, if it is proved that the judgment falls under any of the grounds mentioned in Section 13, it will not be conclusive and hence not enforceable.
• Natural justice principle:
  • Natural justice is a legal philosophy used in some jurisdictions to ensure procedural fairness and to guard against arbitrary decision-making.
  • This principle includes the right to a fair hearing, the right to be heard, and the rule against bias.
• Fraudulent judgments:
  • A judgment obtained by fraud is considered void because the foundation of the judgment is based on deceit and dishonesty.
  • Courts in India take fraudulent judgments seriously to maintain the integrity and trust in the judicial system.

The correct answer is All of the above

Key Points

• Jurisdiction of a Court:
  • Jurisdiction refers to the power or authority granted to a court to hear and decide cases. It is essential for ensuring that legal matters are addressed in the appropriate venue.
  • The jurisdiction of a court can be categorized based on several factors, including local limits, subject matter, and pecuniary value.
• Local Limits:
  • This pertains to the geographical area within which a court can exercise its authority. Different courts have jurisdiction over specific regions or territories.
• Subject Matter of Litigation:
  • This refers to the specific types of cases a court is authorized to hear. For example, certain courts may only handle civil cases, while others may deal with criminal cases or family law matters.
• Pecuniary Value:
  • This concerns the monetary value of the cases that a court can hear. Courts are often limited in their jurisdiction based on the financial stakes involved in the litigation.

Additional Information

• Incorrect Options:
  • Local Limits:
    • This is one aspect of jurisdiction but not the sole defining factor. It limits the geographical area of a court's authority.
  • Subject Matter of Litigation:
    • This is another important aspect but also not the only consideration. It defines the types of cases a court can hear.
  • Pecuniary Value:
    • This factor sets the financial threshold for cases a court can adjudicate but does not encompass the entire scope of jurisdiction.

The correct answer is 'Section 12' of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Key Points

• Section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
  • This section deals with the bar to further suits on the same cause of action once a court has adjudicated upon it.
  • It prevents re-litigation of the same issues between the same parties, thereby ensuring judicial efficiency and finality in litigation.
  • Section 12 is a fundamental principle aimed at avoiding multiple suits and conflicting judgments, which could undermine the credibility of the judicial system.

Additional Information

• Section 11:
  • Section 11 deals with the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents the same parties from litigating the same issue once it has been conclusively settled by a competent court.
  • Although it shares similarities with Section 12, res judicata specifically relates to issues that have been previously adjudicated upon and prevents their re-litigation.
• Section 13:
  • Section 13 pertains to the principles governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in India.
  • This section ensures that judgments passed by foreign courts can be recognized and enforced in India, provided they meet certain criteria and do not contravene Indian laws or principles of natural justice.
• None of the above:
  • This option is incorrect as the correct provision addressing the bar to further suits is specifically Section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The correct answer is ‘Natural persons’

Key Points

• The word ‘resides’ used in section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
  • Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, pertains to the jurisdiction of courts in cases of torts (civil wrongs).
  • The term ‘resides’ is specifically used to refer to natural persons, meaning human beings.
  • In the context of legal jurisdiction, a natural person is said to reside at the place where they ordinarily live.
  • This is crucial for determining the appropriate court for filing a lawsuit involving a tort committed by a natural person.

Additional Information

• Companies:
  • The term ‘resides’ does not apply to companies as entities. Instead, companies are considered to have their registered office or principal place of business for jurisdictional purposes.
• Tort:
  • While section 19 of the CPC deals with torts, the term ‘resides’ is not used to define torts but rather to establish jurisdiction over the natural person involved in the tort.
• None of the above:
  • This option is incorrect because the term ‘resides’ is specifically used for natural persons within the context of section 19 of the CPC, 1908.

The correct answer is 'OPTION 2'

Key Points

• Constructive res-judicata:
  • Constructive res-judicata is a legal principle that bars a party from raising any claim in a subsequent suit which could have been raised in an earlier suit but was not.
  • In the given scenario, A's initial suit for declaration of entitlement to the land was dismissed. A could have claimed adverse possession in the initial suit but did not.
  • Therefore, A is barred from raising the claim of adverse possession in a subsequent suit, as it falls under the principle of constructive res-judicata.
  • This principle ensures that litigation reaches a finality and prevents multiplicity of suits on the same cause of action.

Additional Information

• Actual res-judicata:
  • Actual res-judicata refers to a situation where a matter has been judicially decided and the same matter cannot be re-litigated between the same parties.
  • In this case, the ground of adverse possession was not actually adjudicated in the initial suit, making actual res-judicata inapplicable.
• Either (a) or (b):
  • This option is incorrect as only constructive res-judicata is applicable in this specific context.
• None of the above:
  • This option is incorrect because the principle of constructive res-judicata clearly applies to the subsequent suit.

The correct answer is 'Has to be specifically raised'.

Key Points

• Plea of res judicata:
  • Res judicata is a legal doctrine which means "a matter already judged". It prevents the same parties from relitigating a case that has been conclusively settled by judicial decision.
  • For res judicata to be applied, the issue must have been decided in a previous lawsuit involving the same parties or their privies and must have reached a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.
  • In legal proceedings, the plea of res judicata must be specifically raised by a party to inform the court that the matter has already been adjudicated upon. It is not something the court will consider on its own unless specifically brought to its attention.

Additional Information

• Need not be specifically raised:
  • This is incorrect because the doctrine of res judicata requires the party benefiting from it to raise the plea specifically.
  • If not raised, the court might not consider it and may proceed with the case as if there was no previous adjudication.
• Is for the Court to see of its own:
  • This is incorrect because while the court may recognize a previously adjudicated matter, it is primarily the responsibility of the parties to bring up the issue of res judicata.
  • The court relies on the parties to provide relevant information and arguments regarding the applicability of res judicata.
• None of the above:
  • This is incorrect as one of the given options correctly states that the plea of res judicata has to be specifically raised by the parties involved.
  • The correct procedure involves a specific plea to invoke the doctrine in legal proceedings.

The correct answer is 'If the cause of action in the subsequent suit is the same as in the former suit, even though the decision on the point of law is erroneous'

Key Points

• Res Judicata:
  • Res judicata is a legal doctrine that prevents the same issue from being litigated more than once if it has already been judged in a court of law.
  • It ensures finality and prevents legal harassment by barring parties from re-litigating a matter that has been conclusively settled by a competent court.
  • The principle of res judicata applies to both questions of law and fact, provided the cause of action remains the same in the subsequent suit.
• Explanation for Correct Answer:
  • The decision on an issue of law operates as res judicata if the cause of action in the subsequent suit is the same as in the former suit, even if the decision on the point of law is erroneous.
  • This ensures consistency and finality in legal proceedings, preventing parties from re-litigating the same issue just because they believe the initial decision was incorrect.

Additional Information

• Incorrect Options:
  • Option 2: This option is incorrect because res judicata does not apply if the cause of action is different, regardless of the correctness of the decision on the point of law.
  • Option 3: This option is incorrect because res judicata applies even if the decision on the point of law is erroneous, as long as the cause of action is the same.
  • Option 4: This option is incorrect as it dismisses all possible correct scenarios, while the correct application of res judicata is clearly defined under specific conditions.

The correct answer is 'The Co-defendants must have filed joint written statement'

Key Points

• Res Judicata:
  • The principle of res judicata prevents the same dispute from being litigated more than once if it has already been resolved by a competent court.
  • This principle also applies between co-defendants, meaning that a decision made in a case involving multiple defendants can bind all parties involved.
• Essential Conditions for Res Judicata among Co-defendants:
  • There must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned, meaning that their interests must be adverse to each other.
  • It must be necessary to decide this conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims. This ensures that the resolution of the conflict is essential for the outcome of the case.
• Non-Essential Condition:
  • The Co-defendants must have filed joint written statement is not an essential condition for applying res judicata among co-defendants. The principle can apply irrespective of whether the defendants filed a joint or separate written statement.

Additional Information

• Conflict of Interest:
  • This is a crucial condition as the interests of the co-defendants must be such that a decision on the issue would effectively resolve their dispute.
  • Without a genuine conflict of interest, the principle of res judicata would not be applicable.
• Necessity for Plaintiff's Relief:
  • This ensures that the decision regarding the conflict between co-defendants is integral to the relief sought by the plaintiff.
  • Without this necessity, the court's resolution would not be binding on the co-defendants.

The correct answer is 'Also in subsequent stage of the same proceeding'

Key Points

• Res Judicata:
  • The principle of Res Judicata is a fundamental doctrine within the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) that prevents the re-litigation of issues that have already been judicially determined between the same parties.
  • This principle ensures the finality of judgments, thereby upholding the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process.
  • Res Judicata can be invoked not only in separate proceedings but also at subsequent stages of the same proceeding, ensuring that issues that have been conclusively settled cannot be reopened.

Additional Information

• Only in separate proceeding:
  • This is incorrect because Res Judicata is not limited to separate proceedings; it applies to subsequent stages of the same proceeding as well.
  • Limiting Res Judicata to separate proceedings would undermine the principle's purpose of preventing re-litigation of settled matters.
• Depends upon some things:
  • This option is too vague and does not accurately represent the clear applicability of Res Judicata as defined under CPC.
  • The principle of Res Judicata is well-defined and does not depend on uncertain variables.
• None of the above:
  • This option is incorrect as Res Judicata does apply at subsequent stages of the same proceeding, making Option 2 the correct choice.
  • Choosing 'None of the above' ignores the well-established legal principles under CPC.

The correct answer is 'Explanation IV'

Key Points

• Constructive Res Judicata:
  • Constructive Res Judicata is a principle under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) that prevents parties from re-litigating issues that were not raised in the previous suit but could have been raised.
  • Explanation IV to Section 11 of the CPC specifically deals with this principle.
  • This rule ensures finality in litigation and prevents the abuse of the judicial process by prohibiting the same parties from bringing up the same issues in subsequent suits.

Additional Information

• Explanation II:
  • Explanation II deals with the matter that might and ought to have been made a ground of defense or attack in the former suit.
  • It emphasizes the importance of bringing all relevant issues to the table in one go to avoid multiple litigations.
• Explanation III:
  • Explanation III states that the matter must be deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit.
  • This explanation outlines what constitutes "in issue" in the context of Res Judicata.
• Explanation V:
  • Explanation V states that any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
  • This explanation deals with the refusal of reliefs that were not explicitly granted in the previous suit.