1. Intention to sever the status of joint family can be evinced by
    (A) Conduct
    (B) Explicit declaration
    (C) Either (A) or (B)
    (D) Only (A) and not (B)
  2. Which of the following are the valid mode of partition
    (A) Spoken words
    (B) Conversion of a coparcener to a non-Hindu religion
    (C) Renunciation of share in JFP by a coparcener
    (D) Marriage with non- Hindu according to Special marriage Act, 1954
    (E) All of the above
  3. In which of the following cases, there is no communication of intention to effect a partition?
    (A) A coparcener says: ‘ I do not wish to continue as a joint family member any more so hand me my share.
    (B) A coparcener says: ‘I am thinking of separating’.
    (C) A coparcener dies after communicating his intention to separate but before it reaches other coparcener
    (D) Only (B) and (C)
    (E) All of the above
  4. Which of the following cases are related to the concept of partition in Mitakshara Hindu Law
    (A) G Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi (2011(9) SCC 788)
    (B) A Raghavamma v. Chenchamma (AIR 1964 SC 136)
    (C) Kalyani v. Narayanan (1980 Supp SCC 298)
    (D) All the above
  5. In case a coparcener files a suit for partition. The court dismisses the suit.
    (A) The partition could not be said to have taken place
    (B) The partition could be said to have taken place from the date the suit is instituted.
    (C) A decree of court is necessary to effect partition.
    (D) Either (A) or (B) or (C)
  6. Mark the correct statement
    (A) A minor can claim partition only by instituting a suit through a next friend/guardian
    (B) A minor coparcener has an equal right with the adult coparcener to demand partition of a JFP
    (C) If minor dies during pendency of the suit, the same can be continued by legal representative of minor.
    (D) A partition by agreement entered into by adult coparceners, when there are minor coparceners will be binding on the minors, unless it is unfair or prejudicial to their interest.
  7. After the institution of suit for partition by a member of the joint family
    (A) Subsequent births in the family diminish the share
    (B) Subsequent deaths in the family augment the share
    (C) There is no effect in the shares by virtue of births and deaths
    (D) Both (A) and (B)
  8. Sec. 30 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 authorises a Hindu to dispose of, by will, his
    (A) Self acquired property
    (B) Undivided share in the Mitakshara coparcener property
    (C) Both (A) and (B)
    (D) Only (A) and not (B)
  9. Severance of joint family status takes place, from the date when the communication
    (A) Is sent
    (B) Is received by the first coparcener
    (C) Is received by the last coparcener
    (D) Is received by the karta
  10. In which of the following cases the Supreme Court held that for effecting a partition, there must be intimation, indication or representation of a intention to partition and the communication of intention to sever must be communicated to all interested parties. It has been so held in:
    (A) Rukhmabai v. Laxmi Narayan (AIR 1960 SC 335)
    (B) A Raghavamma v. Chenchamma (AIR 1964 SC 136)
    (C) Mudigawada v. Ram Chandra (AIR 1969 SC 1076)
    (D) Murarka v. Murarka (AIR 1979 SC 300)
  11. According to the doctrine of relationship back:
    (A) Although communication regarding partition might be received by coparceners on different dates, their receipt will relate back to the date of notice.
    (B) The vested rights that might accrue in the interval, between the date of transmission and date of receipt, are not preserved.
    (C) Both (A) and (B)
    (D) Only (A) and not (B)


ANSWER 1. C 2. E 3. D 4. B 5. B 6. A 7. C 8. C 9. A 10. B 11. D

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!