Maharashtra Civil Judge Mains 2016 Question Paper

Page 1 as text

Maharashtra Civil Judge (Main) Examination 2016

MAHARASHTRA JUDICIAL SERVICE (CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION)

MAINS

PAPER I: CIVIL LAW

Time Allowed: 3 Hours

Max. Marks: 100

Civil Procedure Code, Transfer of Property Act, Specific Relief Act, Law of Contracts, Sale of

Goods Act and Partnership Act. Note: All questions are compulsory. Question No. 1 carries 20

marks; all other questions carry equal marks, i.e. 16 marks each. Your answers must be to the

point, wherever possible quoting the specific provision of law. Do not reproduce any question;

write only the question’s number against the answer. English version of the question shall be

authentic in case of any ambiguity.

1. Write a judgment on the basis of the facts narrated below. While writing the judgment: (a)

adhere to the contents of a judgment as required under the Code of Civil Procedure; (b)

frame and answer the issues properly; (c) wherever necessary, fill up the details from your

imagination; (d) give legal, logical and proper reasons for your findings; (e) conclude the

judgment with a proper operative order.

Facts: Suit properties: Gat Nos. 817, 820 and 828, situated at Village Bhada, Tal. Ausa,

District Latur.

Plaintiff’s case: One Ashok Amol Desai was the owner of the suit properties. On 1.10.2004,

he entered into an agreement of sale of the suit properties with plaintiff Ram Lalit Mane for a

total consideration of Rs. 4,00,000. On the date of the agreement, the plaintiff gave Rs.

1,00,000 to Ashok Desai towards earnest money. It was agreed that Ashok Desai would

obtain the requisite permission of the authorities for sale of the suit properties and thereafter,

within one month, the sale deed would be executed on payment of the balance consideration.

Ashok died on 11.10.2006. The plaintiff approached the son of Ashok Desai, namely Arvind,

in January 2008. Arvind denied the transaction. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated

30.9.2010. Arvind did not respond to the notice. Hence Ram filed a suit for specific

performance of the contract and, alternatively, for refund of the earnest money.

Defendant’s case: The defendant denied the transaction and took the defence that the plaintiff

had fraudulently taken the signature of his father on a blank paper, as the father of the

defendant was in need of money and therefore obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000 from the

plaintiff.

Evidence: Take by imagination, based on the pleadings.

2. Answer any two of the following sub-questions: