Answer_MODEL QUESTION PAPER – CIVIL LAW (Paper–II)

Posted on February 17, 2026February 18, 2026 by Admin

MODEL QUESTION PAPER – CIVIL LAW (Paper–II)

FULLY SOLVED ANSWERS

🔷 QUESTION NO. 1 (10 MARKS)

Suit for Rendition of Accounts & Recovery – Bank as Agent

Issues

Whether relationship between X Ltd. and Y Bank is of principal and agent?
Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
Whether money deposited ceased to belong to X Ltd.?
Whether certified bank statements bar rendition of accounts?

Relevant Law

Sections 182 & 213, Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 18, Limitation Act, 1963
Order XX Rule 16, CPC
Section 34, Evidence Act
Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891

Case Law

Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan
Keshavlal v. Lalbhai Trikumlal Mills
Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (SC)

Reasoning

Y Bank handled refund money on behalf of X Ltd., creating a principal–agent relationship. An agent is legally bound to render true and complete accounts.

Though refund warrants were valid for three months, refunds were made even thereafter with continued deposits by X Ltd. Periodic statements and transactions constitute acknowledgment of liability, extending limitation under Section 18.

Certified statements under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act are admissible but not conclusive and do not preclude the court from directing rendition of accounts. The refund money continued to belong to X Ltd. until paid to applicants; unclaimed refunds cannot be appropriated by the bank.

Conclusion

✔ Suit is within limitation
✔ X Ltd. is entitled to rendition of accounts
✔ Upon taking accounts, recovery of the amount found due with interest is allowed

🔷 QUESTION NO. 2 (25 MARKS)

(a) Withdrawal of Admission by Amendment

Law

Order VI Rule 17, CPC

Case Law

Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills v. Ladha Ram
Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal
Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh

Reasoning

A categorical admission is the best evidence against the maker. Withdrawal of such admission would prejudice the opposite party and displace its case. Amendments withdrawing admissions are not ordinarily permitted unless the admission was made under a bona fide mistake and no prejudice is caused.

Conclusion

❌ Amendment to withdraw admission cannot be allowed.

(b) Adverse Possession by Co-owner

Law

Article 65, Limitation Act

Case Law

P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy
Md. Mohammad Ali v. Jagadish Kalita

Reasoning

Possession of one co-owner is presumed to be on behalf of all. Mere long exclusive possession does not amount to adverse possession unless there is open, hostile, and communicated ouster.

Conclusion

❌ Adverse possession cannot be claimed merely on long exclusive possession.

(c) Divorce on Ground of Adultery

Law

Section 13(1)(i), Hindu Marriage Act
Section 112, Evidence Act

Case Law

Goutam Kundu v. State of WB
Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram

Reasoning

Vasectomy does not conclusively prove non-access. Cohabitation continued, and medical failure is possible. Presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 remains unrebutted.

Conclusion

❌ Divorce cannot be granted.

(d) Injunction Restraining Marriage

Law

Sections 5 & 11, Hindu Marriage Act
Special Marriage Act

Case Law

Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao

Reasoning

A Hindu marriage requires both parties to be Hindus. Marriage between a Hindu and a Christian under Hindu rites is void ab initio, conferring no marital rights.