In a suit for money a decree is passed by consent whereby the defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 35,000. It is further declared by the decree that the plaintiff should have a first charge on certain immovable property belonging to the defendant. Is the plaintiff entitled to have the property sold in execution of the decree without institution a regular suit for sale on the charge?
A. Yes, because there being no mortgage or charge prior to the decree, the decree cannot be said to have been obtained 'for the payment of money in satisfaction of a claim arising under the mortgage' within the meaning of O. 34 r 14
B. No, because there being no mortgage or charge prior to the decree, the decree can be said to have been obtained 'for the payment of money in satisfaction of a claim arising under the mortgage' within the meaning of O. 34 r 14
C. The immovable property must have been made security for the payment of the money before the decree was obtained, otherwise the provision of this rule do not apply
D. None of these
Answer: Option A
This Question Belongs to Law >> Code Of Civil Procedure
Under Order 8 Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure set-off may be permitted if-
A. The suit is for recovery of property
B. Set-off claimed by the defendant is ascertained sum of money
C. Value of property recoverable is less than rupees two lacs
D. Defendant presents a written statement of the suit
A. Is barred under all circumstances
B. Is not barred at all
C. Can be filed with the leave of the court
D. Either B or C
A. Such property actually received or might have received together with interest
B. Property actually received including profits due to improvements made by such person
C. Such property actually received or might have received but without any interest on such profits
D. Such property actually received
Join The Discussion