Maharashtra Civil Judge Mains 2020 Question Paper

Page 1 as text

Maharashtra Civil Judge (Main) Examination 2020

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 given below. You must pay attention to the

following points: (a) the judgment should be in proper format; (b) frame issues properly and

give findings on them; (c) conclude the judgment with an operative order.

Facts for the judgment. Plaintiff’s case is as follows: Ram is the owner of a shop

admeasuring 6 x 22 feet. Ram has let out the shop to Digambar at a monthly rent of Rs.

5,000. Digambar started his shop by obtaining a licence from the Municipal authority. In the

month of January 2002, Digambar converted the shop into two shops admeasuring 3 x 22

feet each by constructing a brick-masonry wall. The shops have separate shutters and

separate licences for doing business from the shops. Ram came to know about the division of

the shop in the year 2004. According to him, Digambar has carried out additions and

alterations of a permanent nature without his written permission. He therefore issued a notice

to Digambar and called upon him to vacate the shop on this ground. Digambar failed to

vacate the shop despite receipt of the notice, raising the defence of total denial. Ram

therefore filed the suit for eviction of his tenant Digambar.

Defence taken in the written statement: Digambar filed the written statement and denied the

material facts pleaded by Ram. He has raised a two-fold defence. The first defence is that his

landlord Ram had granted him oral permission to divide the shop into two shops. He is

therefore estopped from making the grievance. He has accepted the rent for two years despite

knowing of the division of the shop. His second defence is that the construction of the

dividing wall does not amount to erection of a structure of a permanent nature. His act is not

violative of the provisions of the Rent Act. He has not caused damage to the original shop.

Parties have adduced evidence. Imagine the evidence and record findings.

2. Write short notes on any four of the following: