Q1. PRINCIPLE: Every person has the right to defend his or another person’s body or property, if there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to such body or property.
FACTS: Leela Meenamma Iyer is a well-known lawyer and a feminist. She usually works till late, and one day, when she was leaving her chamber for home, two men started following her and harassing her. She raised a hue and cry, and her colleague, Ram Arora, who happened to be passing by, heard her. Ram started calling out names to the other men and they got into a fight. Ram, being strong, soon had them begging for forgiveness. As they were trying to flee, Ram picked up a brick, lying nearby, and hit one of the men on their head. As a result, the man died.
Leela Iyer decided to advocate Ram’s case since she owed him her life. She pleaded the ground of right of private defence for him, requesting the Court to acquit Ram and absolve him of all charges. What should the Court’s decision be?
(a) Ram should be acquitted since he was trying to protect himself
(b) The Court should not press charges on Ram, since he was trying to save Leela, and the Right of Private Defence extends to protecting others
(c) Ram should be punished for murder
(d) Ram and Leela should be punished for the murder of the deceased
Q2. PRINCIPLE: Every person is entitled to freedom of conscience and to profess, practice and propagate his religion subject to public order, morality and health.
FACTS: Abdul Karim Khan, of Muzaffarnagar, slaughtered a cow, in the name of religion. At that point of time, there existed an express prohibition on the slaughter of domestic and milch animals. His neighbors, Ram Deen and Alok Nath, who were Hindus, felt that Abdul’s act hurt their religious sentiments, and instituted a suit against him. Should Abdul be prosecuted for the slaughter of the cow?
(a) No, it was part of Abdul’s religious practices. Hence, he should be acquitted
(b) Yes, Abdul can and should be prosecuted since he hurt the religious sentiments of his neighbors
(c) Abdul should be prosecuted since his act amounted to cruelty
(d) Abdul can be prosecuted because the State has a right to regulate the freedom of religion, in the interest of public order
Q3. PRINCIPLE 1: A person cannot claim damages for injury from a risky activity which he voluntarily undertook, knowing well the consequences that could arise from it, in the usual course of events.
PRINCIPLE 2: A master is liable to compensate for acts of his employees/servants done in the course of employment.
FACTS: There are two rival companies Tindal Steels Pvt Ltd (TSPL) and Jata Iron and Steel Co. (JISCO) that have their offices adjacent to each other. Both the companies provide bus services for their employees that are to be availed from the nearby bus depot. Both the companies have their separate buses. One day, Mr. Adhikary, an employee of TSPL, boarded the bus for JISCO employees by mistake. However, on the way home, the bus suffered an accident owing to the driver’s negligence, thereby causing injuries to a few employees. Can Mr. Adhikary claim compensation from JISCO for the injuries sustained?
(a) Yes, since the driver had a duty of care towards the passengers and, the accident was not something that was expected to occur in the usual course of events
(b) Yes, because Mr. Adhikary boarded the wrong bus by mistake
(c) No, Mr. Adhikary voluntarily undertook the risk by boarding JISCO’s bus
(d) No, because Mr. Adhikary is an employee of the rival company, TSPL
Q4. PRINCIPLE: A person imposing total restraint on the liberty of another, thereby causing another to believe that his movement is curtailed, is guilty of false imprisonment.
FACTS: Shanaya and Cindy were amongst the finalists of the Miss India crown, and Cindy considered Shanaya to be her biggest rival. Before the Grand Finale of the competition, Cindy invited Shanaya to her house and locked her inside her storeroom. Now, the storeroom had another exit, behind the cupboard, however, Shanaya was unaware of the same. She sat and wept while Cindy won the crown. Later, she let Shanaya out. Is Cindy guilty for false imprisonment?
(a) No, because there was no restraint on Shanaya’s movement- she could escape from the other door
(b) Yes, because Cindy ruined Shanaya’s chances of winning the crown
(c) Yes, because Shanaya reasonably believed that her freedom of movement was curtailed
(d) No, Cindy was justified, since everything is fair in love, war and competitions
Q5. PRINCIPLE: The tort of defamation is said to be committed when a person causes injury to another’s reputation, in front of others, without any lawful justification.
FACTS: Kamal Kapoor read about the miraculous healing powers of Baba Shamdev in the newspapers, and decided to pay him a visit, in the hope that he would be able to cure his daughter, Kamala, of her sleepwalking. After weeks of treatments, involving a handsome fee taken by the Baba, and prescriptions of expensive medicines and powders that he claimed were made by him using special herbs, Kamala was not cured. Kamal was disappointed with the ineffectiveness of the treatment and heavy cost that he had to bear without any fruit, and wrote a letter to Baba Shamdev accusing him of being a cheat and a liar, and misrepresenting and defrauding people. Baba Shamdev handed over the letter to his lawyer, who filed a suit for defamation on his behalf. Will the suit succeed?
(a) Yes, the suit will succeed and Kamal should be held guilty for slander
(b) Kamal should be held guilty for libel
(c) No, Kamal will not be held liable for defamation
(d) Baba Shamdev should be held for fraud
Q6. PRINCIPLE: If a person brings a potentially dangerous thing on his land for use, and if such thing escapes and causes damage, then the injured party can claim damages, provided that the ‘dangerous thing’ was harmful to the injured party in the usual course of events, not considering the escape.
FACTS: Pethalal is a member and the owner of the Goverdhan Housing Society, which a twelve storeyed building with thirty flats. He himself occupies the ground floor of the building with his wife and mother. Last month, he visited a trade fair in Germany where he came across a new model of a generator and decided to buy it for his building, since maintenance and upkeep of the building was his responsibility. He got the generator installed in his store room on the ground floor, and it was running well, as a result of which all the residents were also happy. One day the generator short-circuited, thereby damaging some of the electrical equipment of Mr. Bhinde, who lived on the first floor. Mr. Bhinde filed a suit against Pethalal and prayed that he be held liable for the damage caused, wholly and strictly. Will the suit sustain?
(a) Yes, Pethalal should be made strictly liable for the damage caused to Bhinde
(b) No, Pethalal is not liable for the damage caused to anyone at all
(c) Pethalal and the Generator Company are jointly liable for the damage
(d) Pethalal should be held liable as the generator is a dangerous thing
Q7. PRINCIPLE: An offer will be considered to be a valid offer only if a person intends for it to result in a binding legal obligation.
FACTS: Aaron is Melissa’s younger brother, and one day, on returning home exhausted, from his basketball tournament, asks his sister to bring him his protein shake from the kitchen. She refuses to do so. Then, he says- “If you bring me my protein shake, I’ll become your slave for a whole week”. She brings him the shake, and the next day demands that he mow the garden, take the dog out for a walk, cook, wash the car and take her out shopping. Aaron clearly refuses to do. Angered by this, Melissa decides to file a suit against her brother, claiming that he was her slave. Will she succeed?
(a) Yes, Aaron should honor his statement and become Melissa’s slave for a week
(b) No, Melissa tricked her brother into the agreement
(c) Yes, no matter what the intention was, the fact remains that Aaron did agree to the offer, thereby giving his acceptance, resulting in a valid contract
(d) No, Aaron did not intend for the statement to result into legal obligation
Q8. PRINCIPLE: Time is the essence of a contract.
FACTS: Ghoshwal Woolens Ltd. is an apparel store in the small town of Bajipur. More than half the people in the town buy clothes from this shop, since it is well known for its quality and reliability. In the month of October, Mr. Ghoshwal, proprietor of Ghoshwal Woolens Ltd., entered into a contract with Mr. Basu, who agreed to supply a thousand pieces of woolen apparel, including sweaters, caps, mufflers and gloves, to the apparel store by November end. He was given half the amount as advance. However, Mr. Basu failed to supply the woolens within the given period and instead supplied it in the month of February. Mr. Ghoshwal accepted the stock, however since he couldn’t sell any of it, he asked Mr. Basu for reimbursement for the losses suffered by him. Is Mr. Ghoshwal entitled to compensation by Mr. Basu?
(a) Yes, since he no longer has use of the woolens, and has incurred huge losses
(b) No, Mr. Basu did supply the stock. He will not be made to pay damages
(c) Yes, since Ghoshwal’s rivals did better business than him
(d) No, Mr. Ghoshwal should have known that Mr. Basu could have defaulted and should have made alternate arrangements
Q9. PRINCIPLE: Express or implied consent should be given for extension of time period, by the party likely to suffer loss by the extension.
Applying the above principle to the facts of the previous question, will Mr. Basu be liable to pay compensation to Mr. Ghoshwal?
(a) Yes, since Mr. Basu defaulted in his delivery of woolens
(b) No, since Mr. Ghoshwal could not sell the stock since he was a bad salesman
(c) No, since Mr. Ghoshwal had accepted the stock
(d) None of the above
Q10. PRINCIPLE: An employer is responsible for the acts of his employees in the course of employment.
FACTS: Raja owns a restaurant in Chandni Chowk, and Rani is employed in his restaurant as the head chef. She has worked in his restaurant “Raja ki Baraat” for more than a year, and is on friendly terms with the owner. On a day when there are fewer customers, Rani asks for a day’s leave to visit her mother, and asks Raja if she could borrow his car for the day. Raja sees no harm and happily agrees.
Now, it’s been more than a year since Rani drove a car, and her driving skills have become pretty rusty. On the way to her mother’s place in Vasant Vihar, she loses control of the car, and has an accident, thereby killing one and severely injuring two others. The injured persons lodge a complaint against Rani and claim that Raja should be held vicariously liable too. Decide.
(a) Both Raja and Rani should be held liable
(b) Only Raja should be held liable, since he is the employer and hence, vicariously liable
(c) Only Rani should be held liable, since it was entirely her fault
(d) Neither Raja nor Rani should be held liable-the pedestrians should have been more careful
Q11. PRINCIPLE: Unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of public property causes public nuisance, the removal of which is the sole responsibility of the State.
FACTS: Shanaya and Varun were strolling in a public park, maintained by the Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika. After walking for a while, they sat down where the leaves of a banyan tree provided shade to them. In numerous places within the park, there were boards that prohibited plucking flowers, harming trees and disturbing the serenity of the park. Manu Dada, known for his notoriety, happened to go the park the same day and carried with him an electric saw, which made a loud ‘whirring’ sound. Using the same, he began to cut the banyan tree, under which Shanaya and Varun took shelter. Varun and Shanaya sue Manu Dada for public nuisance in the park. Decide.
(a) Shanaya and Varun can sue Manu Dada, since the park prohibited causing damage to trees
(b) Manu Dada should be held guilty since he destroyed public property and disturbed Varun and Shanaya’s date
(c) Varun and Shanaya cannot sue Manu Dada for public nuisance
(d) Both (a) and (b)
Q12. PRINCIPLE: Contributory negligence occurs when a person, by his or her own negligence, contributes to the damage caused to him/her by the negligent of another.
FACTS: The workers of the Municipal Corporation in Jhumritaliah are working on the drainage and sewage system for which they have dug up the streets in Sectors 1, 2 and 3. They cover the drains after they finish their work in the evening so that the residents don’t suffer. Zoya’s mother made some sweetmeats at home and decided to send some to her friend living in Sector 2. She asks Zoya to go in the evening to deliver the sweets. Zoya, being an obedient girl, leaves her house in Sector 9, on her bicycle at 7pm, with the sweetmeats in her front basket. She carries a torch with her, which is affixed to the top of the basket in front part of the cycle, since it is evening and visibility is poor in winters. However, Zoya comes across an uncovered drain, and falls into it. She is saved by the people who live nearby. Zoya alleges that the Municipal Corporation was negligent in performing its duties. The Corporation alleges contributory negligence on Zoya’s part, for riding a cycle without a headlamp. Who was negligent?
(a) Zoya was negligent as she should have affixed a headlamp to her cycle
(b) The Municipal Corporation and Zoya were equally negligent
(c) It was Zoya’s mother’s fault
(d) None of the above
Q13. PRINCIPLE: A proposal made by one party and its acceptance by another, with the intention of establishing legal relations, is an agreement.
FACTS: Sahil goes to ‘The Great Indian Bargain’, an exhibition held in the Gymkhana grounds of Mumbai, where the producers sell their products at great discounts. Here, he comes across the window of a shop where a beautiful painting is placed along with a board which says ‘Paintings for Rs. 500’. Knowing the real value of the painting to be much more than Rs. 500, Sahil rushes inside and asks the seller to sell him the painting immediately. The seller refuses to sell him the painting. Sahil sues the seller, claiming that he had breached the contract. Which of the following is true?
(a) Sahil will succeed since the marked price of the painting was Rs. 500
(b) Sahil won’t succeed since the marked price was merely an invitation to offer
(c) Sahil will succeed since the marked price was an offer, and by agreeing to buy it, he had given his acceptance
(d) Sahil won’t succeed since he knew that the true value of the painting was worth much more
Q14. PRINCIPLE: When one of the parties to a contract is in such a relation with the other party as to be able to dominate his will, and uses this superior position to obtain the other party’s consent to a contract, he is said to be exercised undue influence. Such a contract is not valid.
FACTS: Vijay Jain has three sons- Amar, Bharat and Chaitanya. Only Amar and Bharat are married. Bharat has two sons and one daughter, and Amar has one son, Diwakar. On the occasion of Vijay Jain’s 75th birthday, he gifts some of his lands to his sons, and he gifts his largest piece of land, and all his farms and orchards to Diwakar. Bharat and Chaitanya sue Vijay Jain, claiming that his consent has been obtained by undue influence and hence, the transfer of property to Diwakar is void. Decide.
(a) The gift is valid since there was no undue influence
(b) The gift is void since Diwakar coerced his grandfather into giving him the lands and orchards
(c) The gift is void since all the three sons of Vijay Jain should have received an equal share
(d) Bharat’s sons and Amar’s son should receive an equal share of the property
Q15. PRINCIPLE 1: An agent has the right to hold his master’s goods in lien until his previous debts are satisfied.
PRINCIPLE 2: A lien is a right to hold chattels of a debtor as security against the debtor.
PRINCIPLE 3: When a transaction is going on, the goods should be transferred before the payment can be made.
FACTS: Inamdar is a sales agent and he specializes in paintings and other works of art. He finds out who is selling paintings and other artifacts at the lowest prices and sources them to the buyer, thus enabling the buyer to make a good deal. In this deal, he makes a profit equivalent to 5% of the sales proceeds. Mr. Vallya is interested in an ancient painting of Raja Rammohun Roy and Inamdar is aware of the same. After a few months, he informs Vallya that the said painting is available, and can be procured for a price of 15,000 pounds. Mr. Vallya agrees to the conditions and hands over the money to Inamdar. For the deal, Inamdar’s fees would be 1,000 pounds. When he demands his payment from his client, Vallya, the latter refuses to pay until the painting is handed over to him. Can Inamdar hold the painting with him till the payment is made?
(a) Yes, he is entitled to her fees and can hold the goods in lien.
(b)No, he cannot hold the item whose value is so much more than his service charges.
(c) No, he cannot hold these items because Vallya may legally demand his goods be handed over to him before paying Inamdar the service fees.
(d) None of the above.
Q16. PRINCIPLE: Marriage with a minor is voidable at the option of the minor. Marriage with a female above 18 years of age is valid.
FACTS: Monakshi is a teenager aged 16 years, in October 2011. She has been dating Tyler since the last two years and plans to get married to him after post graduation. However, due to opposition from her parents, she is forced to elope with her lover. They get married in a temple in December, 2012. Her parents file a complaint against Tyler. What is the status of the marriage?
(c) Voidable, at the option of Monakshi
(d) Insufficient information
Q17. PRINCIPLE: Grave and sudden provocation is a valid defence in case of a man who experiences a situation that is reasonably grave to provoke him to commit an act or omission which is dangerous to the life of another in the heat of the moment and cannot be undone.
FACTS: Ramesh Nanavati is a successful industrialist and often visits other countries on business trips. When he was returning home from one such trip, earlier than his schedule, in order to give his wife a surprise, he was in for a shock. He found his wife cheating on him with his cousin, Suresh. He flew into a rage, but tried to appear calm outwardly. In the heat of the moment, he called Chhota Chetan and gave him the task of killing Suresh. The gangster killed Suresh the next day. However, he was caught by the police and he confessed that he was given a contract to kill Suresh by Ramesh. Will Ramesh be held guilty?
(a) Ramesh is not guilty because he did not murder Suresh
(b) Ramesh is not guilty because Suresh spoilt his surprise
(c) Ramesh is not guilty because the act was committed in the heat of the moment
(d) Ramesh is guilty because the act was not committed in the heat of the moment
Q18. PRINCIPLE: Theft is said to be committed when a person removes a movable property from the possession of its owner dishonestly, with a view to take the property or to profit from it.
FACTS: Lily was a foreigner and was visiting India to attend a friend’s wedding in Jaipur. She reached Jaipur two days before the wedding and decided to explore the city, shop and enjoy the delicacies that the city had to offer. While she was roaming around on the crowded streets, she dropped her wallet on the pedestrian. She moved on without realizing it. However, Chintu, who was a helper at the Chaat shop, happened to notice the incident, and picked up the wallet and kept it with him. Is he liable for theft?
(a) No, since the wallet was not in her possession
(b) Yes, because he was unjustly enriched by something that didn’t belong to him
(c) Yes, because it is morally wrong to steal
(d) No, it is Lily’s fault- she should have been more careful
Q19. PRINCIPLE 1: An agreement entered into with a minor is void ab initio. Any agreement entered into with a major is valid.
PRINCIPLE 2: A minor is anyone who is below 15 years of age.
PRINCIPLE 3: A contract is incomplete without consideration.
FACTS: Rebecca was born in 1997 in a small town in Karnataka. She is from an affluent family, but her parents are very strict and don’t give her enough pocket money to meet her expenses. Hence, she has to manage her income in other ways. On one occasion, she enters into an agreement with Uncle Mario, her father’s friend, to sell her old cell phone, which is perfect working condition. Mario hands over Rs. 2000 in advance as consideration for the deal. Is the contract entered into between the two valid?
(a) No, because an advance payment is not sufficient consideration
(b) Yes, because all the elements of a valid contract are present
(c) No, because Rebecca is below 18 years of age
(d) Insufficient information
Q20. PRINCIPLE: The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds of gender, caste, religion, race, etc
FACTS: Kalindi Bhonsle was born and brought up in Sholapur, Maharashtra. She seeked admission in the State-run University in Karnataka, which specialized in Interior Designing. She was refused admission in the said University by the authorities, since the University only admitted residents of the State of Maharashtra. Is the University guilty of discrimination?
(a) Yes, Kalindi was discriminated against
(b) No, there was no discrimination
(c) No, and Kalindi cannot question the authority of the University
(d) None of the above
LEGAL REASONING FOR CLAT 2016
Q21. PRINCIPLE: The owner of a place is responsible for its maintenance.
FACTS: Silver’s Gym is owned by James Silver and the gym has many members, including Rohan. One day, while running on the treadmill, the belt gets stuck and since, Rohan was running on a high speed, the sudden break causes him to fall and hit his head on the dumbbells lying nearby, thereby causing him head injuries. James Silver blames the accident on the manufacturer of the gym equipment. Can he escape liability?
(a) Yes, it was the equipment manufacturer’s fault entirely
(b) Yes, it was Rohan’s fault that he was running at such a high speed
(c) No, James is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of Silver’s gym
(d) Rohan voluntarily agreed to the risk by joining the gym
Q22. PRINCIPLE: A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership.
FACTS: Aditya, Ravi and Suraj enter into a partnership to open a restaurant, Golden Harvest in Mumbai. Initially the restaurant does good business, but after a year, owing to staff shortage, the quality of food starts deteriorating. People start criticizing the restaurant and their business reduces significantly. There comes a day when they are forced to shut down their restaurant, and end their partnership. Following this, Ravi goes to Seth Karodimal to borrow some money on the pretext of re-opening his restaurant. However, he runs away with the money. Seth Karodimal sues Aditya and Suraj for the money. Decide.
(a) Aditya and Suraj are not under any obligation to pay the Seth
(b) Aditya and Suraj are not liable to pay because it was not their fault that Ravi ran off
(c) Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partners
(d) None of the above
Q23. PRINCIPLE 1: In wrongful restraint, a person is prevented from proceeding in some particular direction though free to go elsewhere.
PRINCIPLE 2: In wrongful confinement, there is restraint from proceeding in all directions beyond a certain area.
FACTS: Himmat Singh used to go to office and back home via the same route everyday. He was a man of habit and did not like changes, of any sort. During the Diwali season, some shopkeepers set up tents on the road and sold lamps, colored powder and sweets in their stalls. These stalls were set up outside concrete shops and encroached upon the pavement and some part of the road. When Himmat Singh was returning from his office, his path was obstructed by one such stall on the street. He started yelling at the owner of the first stall he saw. This stall was set up by Taakat Singh, and soon there was a huge fight between Himmat and Taakat. Finally, Himmat had to take a detour. However, Taakat was angered by his actions and followed him home. He then sent some goons after Himmat Singh who threatened him that they would shoot him if he left his house.
The act of the stall owner blocking Himmat Singh’s path is a case of-
(a) Wrongful Confinement
(d) Wrongful Restraint
Q24. In the above question, the sending instance, involving the goons who threatened Himmat Singh against leaving the house is a case of-
(a) Wrongful Restraint
(b) Wrongful Confinement
(d) Attempt to murder
Q25. PRINCIPLE: Any agreement in absolute restraint of the marriage of any person is void.
FACTS: Zoya and Benazir are both married to Azhar. He dies in October 2012, reducing them both to the status of co-widows. When Azhar’s will is read out, they discover a clause which states that if either of the co-widows remarry, they would be deemed to have forfeited their claim to any property or maintenance. However, Benazir gets married in February, 2013 and claims her share of maintenance and property, from Azhar’s lawyer, claiming that any clause in restraint of marriage is void. Hence, she should be entitled to maintenance. Decide.
(a) The clause in the will is valid and Benazir is not entitled to any maintenance
(b) The clause is void, by virtue of being in restraint of marriage
(c) Zoya should be given the authority to decide whether Benazir can claim maintenance or not
(d) None of the above
Q26. PRINCIPLE: No person shall be convicted of any offence except violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of an act that has been classified as an offence nor be subjected to a greater penalty than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
FACTS: In the land of Abracadabra, committing murder is not an offence. However, the new government elected in 2010 made new laws. According to one of the new laws, commission of murder was an offence and was punishable with either life imprisonment or death sentence. Adil Shah was involved in a fight with one of his rivals, which led to the death of his rival. This incident occurred in 2009. A case was filed against him, which came to court in 2010. Following the new, the judges laid down that Adil Shah is guilty of murder. Decide.
(a) The Court is wrong. Adil Shah is not guilty
(b) Adil Shah should be given the death sentence
(c) Adil Shah should be let off with a lighter punishment
(d) The Court should not follow the new rules since the new government is corrupt
Q27. PRINCIPLE: India is a secular nation.
FACTS: Ram Krishna College for Engineering (RKCE) is run by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Immanuel Herbert Smith has passed his 12th Boards with distinction and is given a scholarship for higher education. He wants to pursue engineering in RKCE. Initially, he is given admission in the University. However, after a few days, the faculty and Dean of the University decide to rusticate him from college since they think that his religious beliefs and customs are very different from most of the other students, and this might create a ground for fights and harm the reputation of the college. Immanuel files a writ petition challenging this action of the administration. Will he succeed?
(a) No, the University can do whatever it thinks is right
(b) There should be separate institute for religious minorities
(c) Yes, the decision of the college administration should be struck down
(d) The college should focus on education, not on religious issues
Q28. PRINCIPLE 1: Bigamy is not permitted under Hindu Marriage Act.
PRINCIPLE 2: A Hindu person of sound mind can adopt a child of the gender they don’t already have a child of.
FACTS: Pritam is part of a Hindu Vaishnav family where all the male members have more than one wife. He married Sona in 2006 and has a son with her, called Pyaare. He then marries Mona in 2010 and they don’t have any children.
Is his marriage valid?
(a) Only his marriage with Sona is valid
(b) Only his marriage with Mona is valid
(c) Both his marriages are valid since the Hindu Law does not apply to him
(d) None of the above
Q29. Using the fact situation in the previous question, can Pritam adopt a son with Mona?
(a) Yes, since he and Mona have no children
(b) No, since Pritam already has a son
(c) Yes, because he is legally entitled to adopt, since he is of sound mind and has the consent of his spouse
(d) No, since Mona is his second wife
Q30. PRINCIPLE: Whoever stores a substance that could potentially cause damage on escape shall be absolutely liable for any damage caused by the escape of the substance from its premises. The person will be liable for the tort of negligence.
FACTS: Jack and Sparrow are two scientists and they develop a pill that has multiple functions, including radioactive properties. However, they are still experimenting on it, and hence, the pill is stored safely in a glass container, which is kept in their lab. Only Jack and Sparrow have access to the lab. One day, there was an earthquake, measuring 7 on the Richter scale. The effects were felt in the Lab as well. As a result of the quake, the glass container falls and breaks, thereby releasing the capsule, which on reacting with the hydrogen in the air, started shooting sparks and bursts into a flame, releasing gases. William, who lives nearby, hears the commotion in the Lab and goes in to see what is happening. Later, he sues the two scientists, holding them responsible for his exposure to the fumes in the Lab, due to the Pill. Will he succeed?
(a) Yes, he suffered due to the escape of the Pill
(b) No, it was an Act of God
(c) Yes, the two scientists should be held guilty for the tort of negligence and should compensate William
(d) No, there was no escape of any fume, and hence, no negligence
For Questions 31-34:
PRINCIPLE 1: If a man murders a woman, he is to be held guilty for murder.
PRINCIPLE 2: If a woman murders a man, she is not guilty of murder.
PRINCIPLE 3: If a man murders another man, he is not liable for murder.
PRINCIPLE 4: If a woman murders another woman, she is not guilty of murder.
PRINCIPLE 5: If a man murders anyone below the age of 20 years, he is to be held liable for murder.
FACTS: Dino is a terrorist and is forever fleeing from the police. His sister, Diana lives away from him, since he is worried for her safety. She studies in a University in Bangalore, and her best friend is Deep falls in love with her. When the Police get to know of Dino’s sister, they try to establish contact with her, so that they can reach Dino through her. They try to ask Diana, but she can’t give any assistance to the Police since she herself does not know of her brother’s whereabouts. The police think that Diana is trying to evade their questions on purpose and decide to use Deep as a means to get her to talk. When Deep gets to know of this, he refuses to help since he loves Diana and does not want her to be harmed in any way. Now the Police are in a dilemma, but they discover that Deep has a younger brother called Deepak. They kidnap Deepak, when he is returning from school, and threaten Deep that if he does not comply with the Police, they will kill him. Deep thinks that they are merely kidding and still refuses to help the Police. Khunkar Singh, who is the Commissioner, is angered by the turn of events and shoots Deepak in frustration. When Deep gets to know of this, he completely loses his mind and sets out to avenge his brother’s death. He goes and shoots the Inspector, who fires in retaliation. Diana also appears on the spot and amongst all the shooting, gets injured by a bullet shot by the Inspector. She shoots the Inspector who dies on the spot. Dino also arrives to save his sister and when he sees Deep, he assumes that he was a police man in plain clothes and shot him dead.
Q31. Is Khunkar Singh guilty of murder?
(a) No, because according to the law, he is not guilty.
(b) Yes, murder of any person is a punishable offence
(c) Yes, he is guilty because Deepak was below 20 years of age
(d) None of the above
Q32. Using the facts and principles above, is Diana liable for murder?
(a) Yes, because murder is a crime
(b) No, because the Inspector had killed Deepak
(c) No, she was shooting in self defence
(d) No, according to the law, she is not guilty
Q33. Is Dino liable for murder of Deep?
(a) No, he is not guilty as per law
(b) No, he was under a misconception and shot the wrong person by mistake
(c) Yes, he should have taken due care
(d) No, he was shooting in self defence
Q34. If the Inspector had shot Deep instead of Deepak, would he be liable for murder?
(a) No, he would not be guilty as per law
(b) Yes, shooting without a cause is an offence
(c) No, the Inspector was frustrated since no one was giving him information
(d) Yes, because Deep was innocent
Q35. PRINCIPLE: Injuria Sine Damnum.
FACTS: Bikram was an officer in charge of the polling booths. His duty was to assist the people in casting their votes. Basanti, one of the villagers, came to the booth to cast her vote, but she was refused admission inside the booth by Bikram and his men. She wanted to vote for Bankeram. Dejected, she returned home. The next day she complained against Bikram and his men since they violated her right to vote. When the election results were declared, it was discovered that Bankeram received the highest number of votes. Was Basanti’s right violated?
(a) No, because Bikram was an officer and could stop anyone from voting
(b) Yes, because the right to vote is a legal right, which was violated, although there was no other damage
(c) No, because ultimately Bankeram won
(d) No, Basanti was an illiterate villager and did not have the right to vote
For questions 36-38:
PRINCIPLE 1: A person is said to have committed an offence if he has committed any act towards the completion of his objective for the offence.
PRINCIPLE 2: A person is said to not have committed any offence till the time he possesses an opportunity to take back the consequences of his actions.
PRINCIPLE 3: An attempt to commit an offence is an offence in itself.
Q36. FACTS: Prateek and Diya had been dating for two years till Diya decided to break up with him because of his behavior. When she told Prateek, he was devastated. Later in the day, he hung out with friends and had a couple of drinks. His friends teased him for getting dumped, which angered him immensely. He immediately went to Diya’s house with a pistol to shoot her. He reached and rang the doorbell, waiting for her to open the door. While he was waiting, he happened to notice the wind chime hanging in the balcony outside her room. It was the wind chime that he had gifted her. He travelled down the memory lane and thought of all the happy times he and Diya had spent together. Meanwhile, Diya opened the door. Ashamed at himself and guilt-ridden, he tried to hide his gun in his pocket. However, it slipped from his hand and fell down. Diya saw this and raised a hue and cry. Will she succeed in holding a charge of attempt to murder against Prateek?
(a) Yes, since he intended to kill Diya initially
(b) No, because he did not commit any offence ultimately
(c) No, because he was drunk and unaware of his actions
(d) Yes, because he wanted to take revenge on her
Q37. Vicky and Nikki were happily married and lived in a duplex flat in Pune. They decided to rent a part of the apartment in order to get another source of income. They found a tenant called Karthik, and things went on pretty well, till one day, when Vicki started suspecting that there was something going on between Nikki and Karthik. He decided to kill Karthik by throwing a heavy iron trunk on his head when he is passing from below the balcony. When he finally executes his plan, he missed Karthik and the trunk fell on the pavement instead. Can Karthik hold him for attempt to murder?
(a) Yes, since he did throw the trunk with the intention of killing Karthik
(b) No, because Karthik escaped
(c) Yes, because one should not act on mere suspicion
(d) No, Karthik should have stayed away from Nikki
Q38. Mihika is the topper of her batch in Law school, and her roommate, Lipika is jealous of all the attention Mihika gets. One night, when Mihika is sleeping, Lipika decides to finish her off. She takes her pillow and covers Mihika’s face with it, in an attempt to suffocate her to death. However, Mihika, being a light sleeper, wakes up as soon as she senses some pressure on her face, interfering with her breathing. She manages to overpower Lipika and pushes her away. Does Lipika’s act constitute attempt to murder?
(a) Yes, because her motive was disproportionate to her act
(b) No, since Mihika overpowered Lipika
(c) No, Lipika was under the influence of alcohol
(d) Yes, even though she failed, she had clearly tried to murder Mihika
For questions 39-40:
PRINCIPLE 1: The principle of contributory negligence lays down that a person shall not be able to recover for damages suffered by him to the extent of which have been caused due to his own negligence.
PRINCIPLE 2: A person who voluntarily puts himself into a situation of danger shall not be liable to recover damages for any injury suffered in the course of performing the same task.
PRINCIPLE 3: Sovereign functions shall not be covered by principle (2).
Maniratnam was a brave policeman, always ready to render help to the needy. One evening, after finishing his work for the day, and shopping for Diwali crackers and camphor for the pooja, when he was returning home, he noticed a petrol pump on fire. Being a compassionate human being, he could not watch people suffering and jumped out his car. He parked his car inside the petrol pump and started helping the people in dousing the fire and saving lives of people trapped inside. However, in the process, his car caught fire and exploded because of the explosives and camphor. Mani got injured and suffered several second degree burns and was immediately rushed to the hospital. Can he claim compensation from the owner of the petrol pump?
(a) Yes, since he was injured while saving the petrol pump
(b) Yes, his crackers and camphor were reduced to ashes
(c) No, he voluntarily agreed to take the risk
(d) Yes, he was on official duty
Q40. In the above fact scenario, had Mani been on duty while performing the act of helping in dousing out the fire, would he be able to recover the entire amount of damages from the petrol pump owner?
(a) Yes, since he was a policeman on duty and deserves compensation
(b) Yes, because he had not consented to suffering harm
(c) No, he voluntarily undertook the risk, and also because he contributed to the spread of the fire
(d) None of the above
LEGAL REASONING FOR CLAT 2016
Q41. PRINCIPLE: Conversion to another religion solely for the purpose of marriage is not lawful, and such marriage will be deemed to be void from the beginning.
FACTS: Ravi Narayan was born in a Hindu family in Varanasi. His family shifted to a Muzaffarnagar when he was five. Most of Ravi’s school friends were Muslims and since he spent a considerable amount of time with them, he started admiring their customs, the Islamic religion, practices, festivals, etc. He was married off to Raveena soon after he graduated, and they had a son a year after that. Ravi decided to formally convert to Islam on his son’s second birthday.
A few years into his marriage with Raveena, they started having problems and fought often. Tired of this, Ravi started spending most of his time outside home. He would frequent bars and in the process, he met Karishma and fell in love with her. He decided to get married to her, though his marriage with Raveena subsisted. Is his second marriage legal?
(a) Yes, since he did not convert to Islam solely for the purpose of marriage
(b) No, religion is not a joke and should not be changed as and when one pleases
(c) Yes, it is perfectly acceptable since a lot of actors and actresses have done the same too
(d) No, because Ravi’s first wife was still alive
Q42. PRINCIPLE: Refer to the principle mentioned in Q41.
FACTS: Chulbul belonged to an upper caste Hindu family and was married off to Sheela without his consent. Chulbul was in love with Mumtaz (whom he lovingly called Munni) since his college days and wanted to marry her but couldn’t tell his family, since Munni belonged to a Muslim family.
Soon after his marriage with Sheela, they started having problems, as he’d come back home drunk every night and talk about Munni in his sleep. As a result, Sheela started nagging him and eventually, he decided to divorce her, so that he could spend the rest of his life with Munni. However, Sheela refused to divorce him. After several tries, Chulbul finally decided to convert to Islam and then, he married Munni. Which of the following statements is true?
(a) His marriage with Munni is valid since it is permitted by Muslim law
(b) His marriage with Sheela becomes invalid as a result of his second marriage
(c) His marriage with Munni is invalid
(d) His marriage with Sheela is void ab initio since it was without his consent
Q43. PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence which is committed by a person, who at the time of doing the act, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, due to being intoxicated against his will or without his knowledge.
FACTS: On the occasion of New Year’s Eve, Om and Shanti decided to throw a party at a pub. They invited their close friends and the party involved alcohol, music and dance. Since Shanti was the host, she decided not to drink since she had guests to attend to. In the middle of the party, there was an altercation between some of the guests, as they engaged in a drunken brawl. One of the guests got injured as the fight got physical, and started bleeding. Since he required stitches, Shanti drove him to the hospital. Now, on the way to the nearest hospital, she lost control of the car and accidentally hit a person on the road, thereby resulting in minor injuries to him. She also offered to take him to the hospital. Shanti did not have any alcohol, but she was offered some chocolates by Om. On further investigation, it is found that the chocolates that Om offered contained rum. Shanti was unaware of the nature of the chocolate and had many. Can she be exempted from the offence?
(a) No, her ignorance could have killed someone
(b) Yes, because she was not aware that the chocolates contained rum
(c) Yes, since she offered to take the injured man to the hospital
(d) No, greed is a bad thing- she should not have had so many chocolates
Q44. PRINCIPLE 1: Culpable homicide occurs when a person causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death.
PRINCIPLE 2: Intention is a person’s awareness of the fact that his or her conduct could lead to the death of a person.
FACTS: Mrityunjay Dutt was fond of hunting, and in the game season went to the dense forests of Madhya Pradesh along with a few close friends to indulge in his favorite sport. For three days, he found no game, and returned to his tent disappointed. However, on the fourth day, he went to the forest early in the morning. He saw some movement in the bushes and this was accompanied by the sound of rustling of leaves. Certain that he had finally spotted a deer, he thanked his luck and shot at the bush.
However, when he went closer, he discovered that he had shot a human. Feeling guilty for his act, he immediately intimated the forest officers, who confirmed that the man who was shot was a poacher, and the police were in search of him. They rewarded Mrityunjay for his act and commended his bravery.
Is Mrityunjay to be held responsible for culpable homicide?
(a) Yes, since he killed a person
(b) No, since he helped the police by killing the poacher
(c) Yes, since he should have checked whether it was a deer or a human
(d) No, as he did not have the intent to cause the death of a person
Q45. PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence if it is not intended to cause death, and is done by a person in good faith, for the benefit of another.
EXPLANATION: The person on whom the particular act is done must have consented to the commission of that act, with all the associated risks, whether expressly or impliedly.
FACTS: The Great Bali is a famous athlete, from Jamaica. He suffered some injuries in his last sprint in the Olympics. When he went for a check up, it was discovered that he his leg had been infected by some sort of rare pathogen, and had to be removed immediately before it spread to the rest of his body. Dr. Mustafa is a renowned surgeon and Bali requests him to perform the surgery. Before the surgery, Bali is sensitized about the procedure, and all the associated risks, including death and he consents to the surgery. After the surgery, Bali discovers that his infected leg has been amputated, and that his running career is over. He files a suit for medical negligence against the doctor. However, the doctor claims that the amputation was essential to prevent other complications, which involved the spread of the pathogen to the heart, thereby resulting in coma or death. Decide.
(a) The doctor did right in amputating Bali’s leg since wanted to save his life
(b)The doctor had no intention of causing death, and performed the surgery and amputation in good faith, in order to prevent a greater harm
(c) Bali had consented to the surgery, even after being told all the possible risks, including death
(d) All of the above
Q46. PRINCIPLE: A legislation comes into force only when it is promulgated.
EXPLANATION: For the purpose of this question, the meaning of ‘promulgated’ can be ascertained as ‘communicated in the Official Gazette’, such that any person whom the legislation concerns, could have read about it and objected, if he intended to.
FACTS: In the year 2014, a new government is formed in the State of Jharkhand and they release an Act to be applicable to the State, with effect from April, 2014. The Act was called ‘Jharkhand Welfare Laws’. It was sent to be published in the Official Gazette. However, due to some miscommunication, the printed papers were sent to West Bengal. Now, in June, 2014, a man living in Jharkhand was brought to Court, on the charge that he was not complying with the laws of the new Act. Should he be held liable for the same?
(a) Yes, because ignorance of law is no excuse
(b) Yes, as according to the definition of promulgation stated above, there was release of the Official Gazette
(c) No, since there should be a waiting period of 100 days, after promulgation
(d) No, since according to the above definition, there was no promulgation in this case
Q47. PRINCIPLE: If there is an overlap between provisions of the Union and the State List, the Union List prevails.
EXPLANATION 1: The Union List is a list of 99 items given in Part XI of the Constitution of India on which Parliament has the exclusive power to legislate.
EXPLANATION 2: The State List is a list of 66 items given in Part XI of the Constitution of India.
FACTS: The 31st entry in the Union List pertains to posts and telegraphs, telephones and wireless, broadcasting and other forms of communication. A certain entry in the State List involves restriction on the use of mobiles and phones in certain cases. In a case involving the same, the State contended its right to legislate on the subject and the Central Government contended its. Decide.
(a) Only the Union Government can legislate on the above-mentioned subjects
(b) Only the State can legislate on trivial issues such as mobile phones
(c) The Union and the State should jointly legislate on the issue
(d) None of the above
Q48. PRINCIPLE 1: Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India guarantees all the citizens of India to the freedom of speech and expression.
PRINCIPLE 2: Article 358 of the Constitution provides for suspension of provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution during emergency situations.
FACTS: In 2015, the country of Youngistan declared an emergency, so as to suppress the internal conflicts and resolve issues pertaining to the same. Nihaal Singh, the Editor of The Times of Youngistan, published an article in his newspaper, praising the government for their actions, and measures undertaken to reform the country. However, the article was not allowed to be published at that time. After the emergency was lifted, Nihaal questioned the act of the government and claimed his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Using the principles above, decide.
(a) The article should not have been allowed since it criticized the government
(b) The article should have been allowed since it was pro- government
(c) The prohibition on the publication of the article was valid, given the circumstances
(d) The article should not have praised the government’s actions
Q49. PRINCIPLE: Under an established tort law, a person has no legal remedy for an injury caused to him, by an act to which he has himself consented, expressly or impliedly.
FACTS: Every evening, Rania Mirza went to the Tennis Institute near her home to practice tennis. On one such evening, as she walked into the academy, she was looking at the ground, lost in her thoughts. Suddenly, a tennis ball came flying from the court and hit her on the head. The head injury was not severe, but as a result of the sudden hit, her steps faltered and she fell, and got scratches on her legs and arms. She decided to go to the nearby hospital and get her wounds dressed. On the way, she got hit by a speeding vehicle that was travelling well above the permissible speed limit. Does Rania have a remedy against the driver of the vehicle?
(a) Yes, since she had not consented to being hit by a vehicle
(b) Yes, because rash and negligent driving is an offence
(c) No, because Rania should have asked someone for help and not gone alone
(d) No, because she was lost in her boyfriend’s thought as she was crossing the road
Q50. PRINCIPLE: The finder of a chattel does not acquire an absolute property right over it, but only has the title superior to everyone else, except the rightful owner.
FACTS: Varun was dining in a restaurant with his family, and when he was about to leave, he came across an envelope, full of money, lying on the floor of the restaurant. Being an honest man, he immediately handed over the envelope to the Manager of the restaurant, Tarun, so that he could return it to the rightful owner, if he came looking for it. When Varun visited the same restaurant after two months, he remembered the envelope and asked the Manager about it. Tarun said that no one had come looking for the envelope. On hearing this, Varun asked him to hand over the envelope to him, and Tarun refused. Decide, using the above principle strictly.
(a) Varun can’t claim the envelope since it is now with Tarun
(b) Varun has a rightful claim since he is the finder
(c) Tarun and Varun should split the money equally between themselves
(d) The envelope belongs to the owner of the restaurant since it was found on his property
LEGAL REASONING FOR CLAT 2016