Delhi Judicial Services Preliminary Exam Question Paper 2019

Delhi Judicial Services Preliminary Exam Question Paper 2019

A document claimed to be a Will shall not be used as evidence until

All attesting witnesses have been called for the purpose of proving its execution

All attesting witnesses alive and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence have been called for the purpose of proving its execution

One attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution if there be an attesting witness alive and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence

It has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act 1908

An attested document not required by law to be attested:

Has to be necessarily proved by examining an attesting witness.

May be proved as if it was unattested.

Is inadmissible in evidence.

Can only be proved by examining the executant.

For leading secondary evidence:

Moving an application seeking permission therefor, immediately after admission/denial of documents and before framing of issues, is essential

An application seeking permission of the Court is to be filed before commencement of evidence of the party seeking to lead secondary evidence

No application seeking permission of the court is necessary

Application seeking permission if not filed earlier can be filed even after conclusion of evidence

In a suit to which the bank is not a party, the contents of a book of a bank can be proved:

By compelling an officer of the bank to produce the said books.

By tendering in evidence a copy of the said contents certified by the Bank in terms of Sections 2(8), 2A and 4 of the Bankers Books Evidence Act, without compelling the presence as a witness of the officer of the bank.

By compelling the presence of the person in charge of computer system of the bank to prove certified copies of the printouts of the data stored on the said computer system.

By examining the principal accountant or branch manager of the bank.

The court has issued a commission for recording of evidence in a suit by appointing a Local Commissioner. The counsel for the plaintiff raises objections to certain questions put by the counsel for the defendant to the witnesses of the plaintiff in cross-examination. The Commissioner:

Is necessarily required to stall further recording of evidence and to refer the said objections to the court for decision thereof.

ls empowered to decide the said objections and proceed with the recording of evidence.

Is empowered to decide the said objections only if there is no bar in the order of the Court issuing the commission to the Commissioner deciding the said objections.

Is required to record the said objections and ask the witness to answer the question so objected to without prejudice to the plaintiffs right to have the said objection decided from the Court at the time of final arguments in the suit.

Putting an exhibit mark on a document:

disentitles either party to the suit from contending that the document is not to be read into evidence

disentitles either party from contending at the stage of final arguments that the document should not be read into evidence unless such party had at the time of putting of exhibit mark raised objection to its admission into evidence and such objection was kept open for decision

Does not ipso amount to admission of the document into evidence, especially if the document is per se not admissible into evidence

Is final as far as the Suit Court is concerned of admission of the document into evidence

The Court may presume..

That when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation has been discharged.

That an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars

That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed and that a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed was accepted or endorsed for good consideration and that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed and that the common course of business been followed in particular cases and that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it and that if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled to a answer by law, the answer if given would be unfavourable to him.

All of the above

The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man:

Is conclusive proof that he is the legitimate child of that man

Is conclusive proof that he is the legitimate child of that man unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when the child could have been begotten

is no proof that the child is the legitimate child of that man

Is no proof of legitimacy unless proved by other evidence.

Estoppel

Is an equitable principle.

Is a Rule of common law.

ls a principle evolved by judicial pronouncements.

Is codified in Indian law.

A party to a suit can prove a fact in issue.

By examining one witness only in proof thereof.

By examining not more than three witnesses in proof thereof.

By examining any number of witnesses in proof thereof unless the Court is satisfied that examination of any particular witness is not relevant and is with the intent to delay the proceedings

By examining any number of witnesses in proof thereof and the Court cannot limit the number of witnesses sought to be examined.

During continuance of possession of immovable property the person in possession is from denying the title to such immovable property of the person who put him possession, if:

the possession is as a tenant.

the possession is as a licencee.

the person in possession is in unauthorized occupation.

both (1) and (2).

Limitation for claiming compensation for defamation is

3 years from the date when the libel is published

3 years from the date when the published libel comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff

1 year from the date when the libel is published

1 year from the date when the published libel comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff or from the date when the damage for which compensation is claimed is caused, whichever is later