Maharashtra Civil Judge Mains 2017 Question Paper

Page 1 as text

Maharashtra Civil Judge (Main) Examination 2017

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 and evidence given below. While writing the

judgment: (a) the judgment should be written as required by the provisions of the Code of

Civil Procedure; (b) frame proper issues and give findings; (c) the facts and evidence given

here may not be complete; consider missing details by imagination; (d) give legal, logical

and appropriate reasons for your findings; (e) conclude the judgment with an appropriate

operative order.

Facts for writing the judgment. Plaintiff’s case: Plaintiff Mira instituted R.C.S. No. 172 of

1987 against Gopal in the Court of the Civil Judge, J.D., Nagpur, praying for a declaration of

her title in the suit property and also for recovery of possession thereof. She claimed to have

purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 26/6/1982 for a consideration of Rs.

35,000 from the sons of Rahim, the original owner. She was registered as the owner in the

municipal records of the suit property. She averred that at the time of sale, defendant Gopal

was in possession of the suit property as a tenant. Gopal neither accepted her as his landlord

nor paid the rent when the demand was raised.

Defendant’s case: The defendant, in his written statement, while reiterating that Rahim was

the owner of the suit property, stoutly denied the transaction of sale by his sons in favour of

the plaintiff. Defendant Gopal claimed to be in occupation thereof on the strength of an

agreement for sale executed between him and the original owner Rahim. He contended that

the vendors of the plaintiff had no subsisting title in the suit property to convey to her. He

claims that Rahim executed a registered agreement for sale on 20/5/1975 and that he had, by

instalments, paid in all Rs. 26,000 by 12/4/1976, which formed the major part of the price.

He claims to have paid the municipal tax of the suit property since he is in possession. He

also contended that, in spite of repeated insistence, the original owner did not execute the

sale deed and, after his death, his sons also avoided doing so.