Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: In the law of evidence, a person missing for long and not heard of, for over seven years is presumed to have died.
Facts: A, B, and C are children of F and M. At the age of 20, A went out in search of a job and was not contacting the family. All attempts to trace A by the family failed. Eight years after the death of the parents, B and C entered into a partition and took an equal share in the property of F and M. One year after this, A returned home with his wife and two children and claimed his share in the property.
Whether A’s claim is legally sustainable?
पर्याय
A was not heard of, for more than eight years, the legal presumption of death will apply and hence, he cannot claim a share in the property.
It was A’s duty to be in touch with the family at least once a year. The failure of this duty will disentitle him from claiming property.
A will succeed because he is a legitimate son of F and M.
B and C are legally bound to give 1/3 share of the property to A.
Advertisements
उत्तर
A was not heard of, for more than eight years, the legal presumption of death will apply and hence, he cannot claim a share in the property.
Explanation:
Presumption of death is governed by sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act, which allows for a presumption of death for a person missing for 7 years to be raised in appropriate proceedings before the court
Hence "A was not heard of, for more than eight years, the legal presumption of death will apply and hence, he cannot claim a share in the property." is correct as he went missing for more than seven years and there was no evidence that he was alive so he can be easily presumed to be dead and can not claim his share in the property. A dead person does not have any rights or duties.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
The writ by which a High Court or the Supreme Court can secure the body of a person who has been imprisoned to be brought before it is
Examine the Statement and Conclusions given below and choose a suitable answer from the options given:
Statement: It is a fundamental duty, which is unenforceable in a Court of Law that every citizen shall renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.
Conclusions:
1. Reservation of seats for women in employment is violative of the principle stated.
2. Asking a lady inappropriate questions about her personal life is violative of the principle stated.
Examine the Statement and Conclusions given below and choose a suitable answer from the options given:
Statement: A punishment is the imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome upon a group or individual, meted out by an authority.
Conclusions:
1. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is an example of punishment.
2. The imposition of a fine on someone who inflicted bodily injury on another is justified by the statement.
Examine the Statement and Conclusions given below and choose a suitable answer from the options given:
Statements:
1. Justice delayed is justice denied. Justice hurried is justice buried.
2. More than 3 crore cases are pending in the Indian Courts.
Conclusions:
1. People are not getting justice in India.
2. Disposal of cases by ‘Fast track courts’ results in injustice.
3. Cases must be disposed of within a reasonable time.
To which one of the following funds are salary and allowances of the Judges of High Court of a State charged?
Mark the best option:
A major failure of the judicial system in the country has been its ineffectiveness in ensuring speedy disposal of cases under trial. This is out of line of which among the following articles of Constitution of India which provides a right to speedy justice?
Given below is the statement of Legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A suit shall be instituted in the court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises, or the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'Y' carries on business in Mumbai. 'Z' carries on business in Delhi. 'Z' buys goods of 'Y' in Mumbai through his agent and request Y to deliver them at Delhi. Accordingly, 'Y' delivered the goods at Delhi. But he did not get the price of the goods delivered in Delhi. Therefore, he intends to move the Civil Court for recovery of the amount from 'Z'. Which court may approach?
DECISION:
Government of India has decided to establish ____________ in selected High Courts.
The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as. 'Assertion' and the other as 'Reason'. Read both the statements carefully and answer using the codes given below.
Assertion (A): An accused person cannot be forced to give his thumb impression.
Reason (R): An accused person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.
In 2017, the Supreme Court held that right to privacy is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of ______________.
