Mains · descriptive

CG Civil Judge Mains 2014 Question Paper

Page 1 is free to read. Sign in to read the whole paper. All CG Civil Judge papers

Page 1 of the CG Civil Judge Mains 2014 question paper
Page 1 of 3

Page 1 as text

Chhattisgarh Judicial Service Mains Examination 2014

CHHATTISGARH JUDICIAL SERVICE

2014 Mains Examination

Time: 3 hrs

Max. Marks: 100

1. Read the following carefully and write judgement after framing necessary issues:

[40]

The plaintiff Ram Naresh Yadav filed a suit for eviction and damages against the defendant Surjeet

Singh on 10.1.2013. According to plaintiff, he is owner of the suit house situated at village Silyari,

District Raipur and the defendant is his tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five hundred

only). However, despite notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 7.9.2012,

the defendant did not vacate the suit premises. The defendant, while admitting the factum of

tenancy, denied the plaint averments inter alia on the ground that plaintiff’s son Somesh entered into

an agreement to sell the suit premises with him for a sale consideration of Rs. 65,000/- (Rs. Sixty

five thousand only) on 20.1.2001, out of which he has already paid him Rs. 59,000/- (Rs. Fifty nine

thousand only) on different dates, and after execution of the aforesaid agreement of sale, now he is

in its possession as owner/ prospective purchaser and not as tenant and the suit is liable to be

dismissed.

The plaintiff produced and proved Rent Note Ex. P1 dated 20.10.1999, legal notice Ex. P-2 dated

7.9.2012 and its acknowledgement Ex. P-3, whereas defendant produced the agreement of sale Ex.

D1 dated 20.1.2001 said to be executed between plaintiff’s son Somesh and him and one diary Ex.

D2 showing payments received by Somesh. Defendant also filed copy of legal notice sent by him

through his lawyer to the plaintiff claiming the suit premises in his possession in part performance

of the contract and not as a tenant, after execution of agreement of sale. Apart from document

evidence plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 whereas defendant examined himself as DW-1 as well

as plaintiff’s another son Rakesh as DW-2, in which he has given evidence corroborating the

agreement between defendant and Somesh.

(Note: C.G. Accommodation Control Act is not applicable on the subject matter of suit)

2. Read the following carefully and write judgement after framing the necessary charges.

On 10 March 2014, while returning back to his house sometime between 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. in the

evening, after dropping his brother to Raipur Airport, A was stopped by accused ‘B’ with an

unidentified person, who were armed with a pistol, and asked him to hand over his wristwatch