Question

Principle: When a person interferes with peaceful possession of another person without the permission of the person in possession of those premises, it commits trespass to land.
Facts: 'T' just walked over the land of 'P' to reach his house as it was a short cut. 'P' had displayed a notice that it is not a thoroughfare. 'P' did not cause any damage to the land.

• A. 'T' has created nuisance for 'P'
• B. 'T' has violated privacy of 'P'
• C. 'T' has committed trespass to land
• D. 'T' has not committed any trespass on the land of 'P'
• A. 'B' will get the difference of rupees 1,000/- only
• B. 'B' will get damages from 'A'
• C. 'B' can proceed against 'C'
• D. 'B' will not get any damages from 'A'
• A. insulted Sheetal
• B. rightly showed his anger
• C. not committed an assault on Sheetal
• D. committed an assault on Sheetal
• A. David is guilty of forgery as the addition of the signature was with an intention to make people believe that those were the paintings of the great artists.
• B. There is no point in taking legal action against David as the signature has not done any alteration to the art work.
• C. David is not guilty of any offence as he was selling the art pieces for his living.
• D. Those who buy the art pieces from David ought to have been careful in checking it and ensuring that they were originals before purchasing it.
• A. P is not justified as she did not have the right to deny R's request.
• B. R can take back the house by cancelling the transfer deed.
• C. P is right as she did not like smuggled goods to be kept in her house.
• D. As R was making the contract for illegal activities, P’s stand is valid in law.
• A. Liability for negligence does not arise here as A performed the operation sincerely.
• B. A is liable for the negligence as he failed to take proper care during the surgery.
• C. A is not liable as he did not foresee any consequence at the time of surgery.
• D. As only a small swab was left in the abdomen, there was no negligence.
• A. If at all X is liable, it is for criminal misappropriation only.
• B. X is liable for criminal misappropriation and embezzlement.
• C. X is not guilty of criminal misappropriation as he did not make any personal gain out of those items with him.
• D. X is liable for theft as he took A’s property without X’s permission.
• A. Situation 4 only is a contract
• B. Situations 2 and 4 are contracts
• C. Situations 1 and 2 are contracts
• D. Situation 3 only is a contract
• A. 'P' is required to pay expenses for surgery for Appendicitis but not for Gall Bladder
• B. 'P' can claim damages from 'S'
• C. 'P' is not bound to pay expenses of the surgery
• D. 'P' cannot claim damages from 'S'
• A. The Company is not liable as Rahul was dismissed by the Company.
• B. The Company is liable to the customers who purchased the local product from Rahul only till he remained as a salesman of the Company.
• C. The liability rests with the local manufacturer as it was a defective product.
• D. The Company is liable to compensate all the customers as it did not inform the public about Rahul’s fraudulent conduct and the subsequent dismissal.
• A. Sale will be completed when 'B' will take the delivery of the car.
• B. Sale of car is complete.
• C. Sale of car is not complete.
• D. Sale will be automatically completed after the expiry of one month.
• A. There is a valid contract because all the terms of contract are certain and not vague as the rents fixed by both of them and the term ‘present style’ only can be interpreted to mean the latest style.
• B. There is no valid contract because it has vague and uncertain terms, as the term ‘present style’ may mean one thing to Sunder and another to Bhola.
• C. It is voidable contract at the option of Bhola.
• D. There is a valid contract because there is an offer from Sunder and acceptance from Bhola.
• A. Yes, because there is some difference of opinion it would be an industrial dispute.
• B. No, as declaring holidays is a prerogative of the employer. So no industrial dispute.
• C. As the difference of opinion between the employees and employer is on declaration of holiday it amounts to an issue connected with employment or with the terms of employment and hence, an industrial dispute.
• D. No, as Lunar eclipse is unconnected with employment.
• A. The film star was right in refusing P, as she did not offer any reward for anyone who would return the necklace.
• B. As the film star had notified in the newspaper, P ought to have read it and contacted her instead of publishing another notification. So he cannot claim any compensation.
• C. As it was wrong on the part of P to bargain over a property belonging to a celebrity and he should have accepted some gift which might have been given by the film star and returned the necklace instead of threatening her that he would sell it.
• D. P was requesting the film star for the actual expenditure incurred by him before returning the necklace. This request is legally sustainable.
• A. 'A' has not committed defamation
• B. 'A' has committed a moral wrong
• C. 'A' has not committed moral wrong
• D. 'A' has committed defamation
• A. Court will not punish the man for rape.
• B. Court will punish the police officer.
• C. Court will not punish the police officer.
• D. Court will punish the man for rape.
• A. It is illegal for religious groups acquire property from its members.
• B. As Gift is also a contract, the consent of A was not obtained by P while executing the deed.
• C. As the gift deed was executed by A, he cannot refuse.
• D. A executed the deed, under compulsion and undue influence, and was right in withdrawing from the contract.
• A. 'B' has not committed any offence.
• B. 'B' has committed an offence.
• C. 'A' has not committed an offence because he was mad.
• D. 'A' has committed the offence of attempt to murder.
• A. As forgery amounts to adding or deleting anything from an original document, the demand of the researcher is valid.
• B. The additions were made to give clarity to the original document and did not in any sense change the contents of the documents and hence there is no forgery as alleged by the researcher.
• C. The additions in the letters were made by the publisher in his own handwriting would have made material alteration to the original meaning and hence amounted to forgery.
• D. Allowing forged publications to be circulated among the public is as good as committing fraud on the public, so the publication should be banned.
• A. ‘X’ will be entitled to receive compensation from ‘Y’ in the form of money.
• B. ‘X’ will not be entitled to receive compensation.
• C. ‘Y’ will be entitled to receive compensation from ‘X’ in the form of money.
• D. ‘Y’ will not be entitled to receive compensation from ‘X’.
• A. All three are liable for all the offences as there was common intention to commit the crimes.
• B. Only Dilbag and Sushil are liable for burglary in looting the house, and all three will be liable for housebreaking and rape as they did not stop Sanju from committing the offence and hence were accomplice to the offence.
• C. Only Sanju will be liable for rape as he was the one who actually committed the offence.
• D. Sanju will be liable only for housebreaking and rape as he did not participate in the burglary.
• A. Lal was not aware of the fact that Gurudutt was a minor.
• B. Gurudutt should not have entered into a contract with Lal when he was a minor.
• C. Lal argues that as per the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Gurudutt can claim the money only after he attains the age of 21.
• D. A promissory note duly executed in favour of a minor is not void and can be sued upon by him, because he though incompetent to contract, may yet accept a benefit.
• A. ‘A’ committed no offence against the parents of the girl.
• B. ‘A’ committed an offence against the girl.
• C. ‘A’ committed no offence against the girl as well as her parents.
• D. ‘A’ committed an offence against the girl as well as her parents.
• A. The agreement is void because rupees 5,00,000/- is excessive.
• B. The agreement is void, as the object and consideration for it is opposed to public policy.
• C. The agreement is valid, as it is a contract between two parties with their free consent.
• D. The agreement is valid, as it is with consideration for public service.
• A. The right of private defence is available to persons against assailants or wrong-doers only and a dog does not fall in this category.
• B. Shooting a fierce dog is not to be brought under the criminal law. So the case should be dismissed.
• C. As there was no guarantee that the dog would not bark again, shooting it was a precautionary measure and hence within the right available to X under law.
• D. There was no imminent danger to X as the dog stopped barking and was walking with the owner. Hence, shooting it amounted to excess use of the right of private defence and hence liable for killing the dog.
• A. The contract is enforceable against the doctor.
• B. The contract is not enforceable as doctor was in dominating position.
• C. The contract is not enforceable without the consent of the patient.
• D. The contract is enforceable against the patient by the doctor.
• A. T should have consulted ABCC before starting his coaching centre.
• B. T started the new coaching centre near ABCC intentionally, and shall be liable to compensate the loss of ABCC.
• C. T has not violated any of ABCC’s legal right though they sustain some financial loss, and not legally bound to compensate ABCC.
• D. T will be liable to compensate the loss to ABCC.
• A. As Soloman did not use the loan amount for his use and hence, no action can be initiated against him.
• B. The Bank can file a suit for recovery of the loan amount against Soloman as he took the loan for a personal purpose and in such case no immunity will work.
• C. The Bank can recover the loan amount from the Trade Union as Soloman is the Secretary of the Union.
• D. The Bank cannot initiate any action against Soloman as he is the Secretary of a Registered Trade Union.
• A. The parties were trying to confer jurisdiction to some authority to decide a dispute and hence the clause would be invalid.
• B. Arbitrator cannot be termed as an ordinary Tribunal. Hence, the agreement is void and would be unenforceable.
• C. The contract is valid but the clause regarding Arbitration is void.
• D. Arbitration is also a valid dispute settlement machinery recognized by law and hence the entire contract is valid.
• A. The Hotel Manager who could legally claim the Car as he was the one actually purchased the soap for the use in the Hotel.
• B. Mr. Martin obtained the Key before the stipulated date from the Soap Bar. So he is covered by the offer of the Soap Company and can claim the car.
• C. No. Actual intention of the Company was to promote the sale of the Soap.
• D. No. The Soap Company has not entered into a contract with Mr. Martin as he was not in India on January 1, 2017 when the advertisement was published.
• A. ‘B’ has committed misappropriation.
• B. ‘B’ has not committed the act fraudulently.
• C. ‘B’ has committed the act fraudulently.
• D. ‘B’ has committed breach of faith.
• A. The Company’s circular is illegal and has to be quashed by the Court.
• B. Circular issued by a Company amounts to law in the constitutional sense and hence the High Court can issue a writ as pleaded for by Navin.
• C. The prohibition against any imposition of restriction against a fundamental right is not applicable to anybody other than the state and hence Navin will not get any relief from the High Court.
• D. The circular interferes with the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and hence the High Court can issue an appropriate writ.
• A. The act of Zameer amounted to innocent misrepresentation.
• B. The act of Zameer did not amount to fraud, as disclosing the fact would have resulted in exposure of his privacy.
• C. The act of Zameer did not amount to any misrepresentation.
• D. The concealment of fact by Zameer amounted to fraud.
• A. Yes, because men are not supposed to behave improperly with women and hence there is no violation of any principles of law.
• B. No, because in the modern times this type of behaviour is common.
• C. No, because the employer did not give a chance to ‘X’ to explain his side, thereby violated the principles of natural justice.
• D. Yes, moral law is antique and therefore, not applicable in modern times, therefore the termination is valid and no violations of the principles of natural justice occurred.
• A. The Employer is not liable as the truck driver was negligent.
• B. The Employer is liable to pay compensation as the accident took place arising out of and in the course of employment.
• C. The Employer is not liable as he was admitted in a private hospital and not a Government Hospital.
• D. The Employer is liable as S had to rush back to the office, because of the message from the office.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understand the principle. The principle clearly states that any interference with the peaceful possession of another person’s property, without their consent, constitutes trespass to land. This is true even if no physical damage is caused.
Step 2: Apply the principle to the facts. In the given facts, 'P' is in peaceful possession of the land. 'T' entered and walked over the land without permission, despite there being a notice that it was not a thoroughfare. This is an act of interference with possession.
Step 3: Address the "no damage" point. Trespass to land does not require actual damage. The mere unauthorized entry is sufficient to constitute trespass. Therefore, the fact that 'T' did not cause damage does not protect him from liability.
Step 4: Eliminate incorrect options.
- Option (a): Nuisance involves interference with the enjoyment of property, usually continuous and causing inconvenience, which is not the case here.
- Option (b): Violation of privacy refers to intrusion into someone’s private life, which is different from trespass to land.
- Option (d): This is incorrect because unauthorized entry has occurred, which by definition is trespass.
Step 5: Conclusion. Based on the principle, the correct answer is that 'T' has committed trespass to land, regardless of the absence of damage.

Answer 2

Step 1: Understanding the principle. The principle clearly states that acceptance must be absolute and unqualified to form a valid contract. This means the acceptance should match exactly with the terms of the offer without any modifications.
Step 2: Applying the principle to the facts. 'A' offered to sell his motorcycle to 'B' for Rs. 25,000. 'B' replied that he would buy it for Rs. 24,000. This is not acceptance—it is a counter-offer because it changes the terms of the original offer.
Step 3: Legal effect of a counter-offer. A counter-offer has the effect of rejecting the original offer. Once the original offer is rejected, the offeror ('A') is no longer bound to sell the motorcycle at the original terms.
Step 4: Conclusion based on the situation. Since no valid acceptance took place, no contract was formed between 'A' and 'B'. Without a contract, there can be no damages for breach. Therefore, 'B' cannot claim any damages from 'A'.

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding the principle. Assault in legal terms requires the use of physical force that causes bodily injury. Mere gestures, words, or expressions of anger without actual harmful physical contact do not constitute assault under the given definition.
Step 2: Applying the facts. Rustum raised his fist in anger, which is an aggressive gesture. However, he did not physically hit Sheetal, and thus there was no bodily injury caused.
Step 3: Importance of the requirement for bodily injury. The principle here specifically ties assault to the infliction of bodily injury, not just the threat of it. Since no physical injury occurred, the act does not satisfy the given legal definition.
Step 4: Conclusion. Even though Rustum’s action may have been impolite or intimidating, it does not meet the legal definition of assault under this principle. Hence, the correct answer is that Rustum has not committed an assault on Sheetal.

Answer 4

Step 1: Understanding the principle. The legal definition of forgery here focuses on falsification done with the intent to deceive. This includes adding signatures or markings that make the work appear to be from a different, genuine source. It does not require that the physical artwork itself be altered beyond the falsifying act; the deception is sufficient.
Step 2: Applying the facts. David sold paintings while claiming they were made by great artists. The paintings bore the signatures of these artists, which created a false representation of authenticity. Even if David did not paint them himself, selling them with these forged signatures amounts to knowingly using falsified material.
Step 3: Evaluating the intent. The presence of the false signatures and David’s act of selling them as originals show clear intent to deceive buyers into believing they were purchasing works of famous artists. This matches the core element of forgery—intentional deception.
Step 4: Addressing incorrect options.
- Option (b) is wrong because the act of adding a false signature is itself material alteration for purposes of forgery law.
- Option (c) is wrong because the fact that David was earning a living from it does not excuse criminal conduct.
- Option (d) is wrong because buyer negligence does not remove criminal liability from the seller in a case of intentional forgery.
Step 5: Conclusion. Since David knowingly used falsified signatures to pass off paintings as works of famous artists, he committed forgery under the principle given.

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding the principle. A valid contract must have a lawful object and purpose. If the contract’s object or consideration is illegal or immoral, it becomes void and unenforceable in law.
Step 2: Applying the facts. R gave P a house on the condition that she would allow smuggled goods and drugs to be stored in it. The act of smuggling and storing illegal drugs is a criminal offence and is clearly an unlawful purpose.
Step 3: Legal consequence. Since the purpose of the contract was illegal, the contract is void ab initio (invalid from the very beginning). Any promise or condition based on such an illegal object cannot be enforced in court.
Step 4: Justification for P’s refusal. Even though P initially accepted the house, she is under no legal obligation to fulfill an illegal term of the contract. The law will not compel performance of a condition that promotes illegal activity.
Step 5: Conclusion. P’s stand is valid in law because the underlying agreement was for an unlawful purpose, making the contract void.

Answer 6

Step 1: Understanding negligence in law. Negligence occurs when a person fails to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would take under similar circumstances, leading to harm or injury to another. In professional contexts, such as medicine, the standard of care is judged by the skill and diligence expected from an average practitioner in that field.
Step 2: Applying the facts. Here, the doctor left a cotton swab inside the patient’s abdomen during surgery. This is a clear case of not exercising due care and attention. Such an oversight is considered a breach of the duty of care owed to the patient.
Step 3: Foreseeability and standard of care. A reasonably competent surgeon is expected to ensure that no surgical instruments or materials are left inside a patient’s body after an operation. This is a basic precaution in post-operative protocols.
Step 4: Causation. The cotton swab caused medical problems for the patient, requiring another surgery. There is a direct causal link between the doctor’s negligent act and the harm suffered.
Step 5: Conclusion. Since the injury resulted from a preventable error, A is liable in negligence for failing to take proper care during the surgery.

Answer 7

Step 1: Understanding the principle. Criminal misappropriation occurs when someone uses another person’s property dishonestly for their own purposes without authorization. Embezzlement is a form of criminal misappropriation in which the property has been lawfully entrusted to the person, but the person then dishonestly converts it to their own use. Theft, by contrast, involves taking property without permission at the outset.
Step 2: Applying the facts. A lawfully entrusted his valuables to X, the guard, for safekeeping. This means that X had legal possession at the beginning. However, instead of returning them, X sold the valuables and used the money for his own purposes.
Step 3: Why this is embezzlement. Because X had lawful possession of the property but dishonestly misused it for his own benefit, the offence fits the definition of embezzlement.
Step 4: Why this is also criminal misappropriation. The act of selling and using the proceeds for personal consumption (drinking liquor) shows dishonest conversion of another’s property, which is criminal misappropriation.
Step 5: Why it is not theft. Theft requires that the initial taking be without consent. Here, the initial handing over of the property was voluntary for safekeeping, so the essential element of theft is missing.
Step 6: Conclusion. X is liable both for criminal misappropriation and for embezzlement because he was entrusted with the valuables and used them dishonestly for his own benefit.

Answer 8

Step 1: Understanding the principle. For a contract to exist, there must be an offer and an absolute acceptance of that offer. Conditional acceptance or negotiation does not create a binding contract.
Step 2: Analyse each situation.
- Situation 1: R’s reply changes the price from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 15 lakhs. This is a counter-offer, not an acceptance, so no contract is formed.
- Situation 2: P’s statement that his house is available for 20 lakhs is merely an invitation to offer, not a concluded contract. No acceptance is shown from C.
- Situation 3: L’s statement about selling furniture is only an offer, but the facts do not mention any acceptance by K. No contract is formed.
- Situation 4: R advertised his car for Rs. 3 lakhs. S offered Rs. 2.5 lakhs and R accepted. This acceptance concludes the agreement, forming a valid contract.
Step 3: Conclusion. Only Situation 4 meets the principle’s requirement for offer and acceptance, so it is the only valid contract.

Answer 9

Step 1: Understanding the principle. Consent in law protects the actor from liability only if the act performed is the same act for which consent was given. Any act beyond the scope of that consent can attract liability.
Step 2: Applying the facts. P gave written consent for removal of appendicitis. This was the only act authorized. The removal of the gall bladder was not part of the consent and constitutes a separate medical procedure.
Step 3: Legal effect. Since the removal of the gall bladder was done without consent, it falls outside the scope of protection provided by the consent principle. This makes S liable for damages for the unauthorized procedure, regardless of his intention or medical reasoning.
Step 4: Conclusion. P can claim damages from S for the removal of the gall bladder because consent was not given for this act. The principle protects only the act for which consent was given, and nothing beyond that.

Answer 10

Step 1: Understanding the principle. An employer (master) is liable for wrongful acts committed by employees (servants) if those acts occur in the course of employment. Additionally, the master must take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to third parties, even after employment ends, if the risk of deception continues.
Step 2: Applying the facts. Rahul was dismissed for fraudulent activities, but the Company failed to inform the public that he was no longer their salesman. This omission allowed Rahul to continue misrepresenting himself as a Company employee and deceiving customers.
Step 3: Reasonable care obligation. The Company’s failure to issue a public notice created a situation where customers could reasonably believe Rahul was still an authorized salesman. This breach of duty made the fraud foreseeable even after dismissal.
Step 4: Conclusion. Because the Company’s negligence in warning the public contributed to the harm, it is liable to compensate all customers who suffered losses, even though Rahul was no longer employed.

Answer 11

Step 1: Understanding the principle. The sale of goods is complete when ownership (title) passes from the seller to the buyer, regardless of whether the physical possession has been transferred immediately.
Step 2: Applying the facts. 'A' sold the car to 'B'. This means the ownership rights passed to 'B' at the time of sale. The fact that 'B' requested 'A' to keep the car for a month is only an arrangement for custody, not a delay in transfer of ownership.
Step 3: Distinguishing ownership and possession. Possession is the physical control over the object, while ownership is the legal right over it. Here, ownership passed immediately upon the sale, while possession remained temporarily with 'A' at 'B’s' request.
Step 4: Conclusion. Since ownership was transferred at the moment of sale, the sale was complete even though possession remained with 'A'.

Answer 12

Step 1: Understanding the principle. For a contract to be valid, all essential terms must be clear and definite, or at least capable of being made certain without ambiguity. If any term is vague or subjective without an objective standard, the agreement becomes void.
Step 2: Applying the facts. In this case, the rent amount and duration are certain. However, the term “decorated according to contemporary style” is vague because “contemporary style” is open to interpretation and may differ from person to person.
Step 3: Legal consequence. Since the style requirement cannot be objectively determined without further clarification, this creates uncertainty about the performance obligations under the contract. As per the principle, such uncertainty renders the contract void.
Step 4: Conclusion. The contract is void due to uncertainty in the decoration clause, making it impossible to ensure mutual understanding and enforceability.

Answer 13

Step 1: Understanding the principle. An industrial dispute must be directly connected with employment, non-employment, the terms of employment, or the conditions of labour. Matters unrelated to work or employment terms do not qualify.
Step 2: Applying the facts. Here, employees requested half a day leave for celebrating a lunar eclipse — a personal and cultural activity unrelated to the nature of their employment or working conditions.
Step 3: Legal consequence. Since the request is not about wages, working hours, job security, workplace safety, or any other employment-related term, it falls outside the scope of an “industrial dispute” as defined in the Act.
Step 4: Conclusion. The refusal to grant leave for a lunar eclipse celebration is not an industrial dispute because it has no connection with employment or the conditions of labour.

Answer 14

Step 1: Understanding the principle. A finder of goods is treated as a bailee, which means he has certain duties (such as taking reasonable care of the goods) and rights (including the right to be compensated for expenses incurred in protecting or preserving the goods). If the owner refuses to pay lawful charges, the finder can even sell the goods under specific legal provisions.
Step 2: Applying the facts. P took custody of the necklace and attempted to trace the owner by publishing an advertisement in a local newspaper. This was a reasonable action as per the duties of a bailee to locate the true owner. The expense of publishing this advertisement is a legitimate charge incurred while discharging his legal duty.
Step 3: Right to compensation. The principle entitles P to recover such reasonable expenses from the owner before handing over the goods. The refusal of the film star to pay these charges does not remove P’s legal right to be compensated for them.
Step 4: Conclusion. Since P’s demand is limited to actual, reasonable expenses for finding the owner, his request is legally valid. The refusal of the owner to pay makes P’s stance sustainable under the law relating to the rights of a finder of goods.

Answer 15

Defamation requires that the defamatory statement must be communicated to someone other than the person defamed.
The principle states that a statement must lower a person’s reputation in the estimation of "other persons."
If the statement is only communicated privately to the person concerned, without being shared with any third party, it does not damage reputation in the eyes of others.
In this case, 'A' delivered the letter in a sealed envelope directly to 'B', meaning no other person was made aware of its contents.
Since there is no publication to a third party, the essential element of defamation is missing.
However, while 'A' has not committed defamation, the act could still be morally wrong due to abusive language, but that is outside the scope of the given principle.
Thus, applying only the principle provided, 'A' has not committed defamation.

Answer 16

The given principle states that rape, as per the provided rule, is defined as carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man or woman.
Here, the act involved a man and an animal — which means the other party was not a human being (neither man nor woman).
Since the principle strictly limits the scope to acts involving humans, the situation described does not fall within the provided definition of rape.
Although such an act may constitute a separate offence under laws dealing with bestiality or cruelty to animals, it is outside the definition provided in this question.
The role of the Police Officer in arresting the man is lawful as part of maintaining law and order, and there is no provision in the given principle to punish the police officer.
Therefore, the Court, applying only the given principle, will not punish the man for rape, since one essential requirement — involvement of a human — is missing.

Answer 17

Undue influence occurs when one party uses a position of power over the other to obtain an unfair advantage in a contract.
According to the principle, if an agreement is made under undue influence, the influenced party has the right to refuse to perform the contract.
In the facts given, A was in a subordinate position to P within the religious group, which already created a relationship where influence could be exercised.
The demand to gift away all immovable property to P was highly unreasonable and unfair, which raises suspicion of improper pressure.
Moreover, A was not only influenced but was physically restrained and coerced into signing the deed — making the lack of free consent very clear.
Consent is a fundamental requirement for the validity of a contract, and when it is obtained through undue influence or force, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the influenced party.
Therefore, A is fully within his rights to refuse performance and withdraw from the contract.
Option (d) correctly applies the principle to the facts, making it the right answer.

Answer 18

The principle clearly states that any act done in the exercise of the right of private defence is not an offence.
Private defence allows a person to protect their body and life from immediate harm, even if it requires causing harm to the aggressor.
In this case, B was facing a life-threatening attack from A, who was attempting to kill him.
The fact that A was acting under madness does not remove the threat to B’s life — the danger was real and immediate.
Criminal law focuses on the right to protect oneself in the moment, not on the mental state of the attacker, when assessing the victim’s right of defence.
Therefore, B’s act of killing A was justified under the principle of private defence and is not considered a criminal offence.
The focus is on the necessity of the action to prevent death or grievous injury, and here that necessity clearly existed.

Answer 19

Forgery, as per the given principle, requires a significant alteration or fabrication of a document in such a way that it misrepresents the original truth with the intent to deceive.
Minor additions or clarifications that do not alter the essential meaning of the content do not qualify as forgery under this definition.
In the facts, John added certain words or sentences in his own handwriting to make incomplete sentences clearer for readers.
The additions were not made to change historical facts or mislead readers about the real meaning of the letters but simply to enhance understanding.
The intent behind the act is crucial in forgery — here, the intent was not to deceive but to provide clarity.
Since there was no fabrication of facts, no significant misrepresentation, and no intention to commit fraud, this does not meet the legal threshold for forgery.
Thus, the researcher’s claim does not hold merit and banning the book is not justified under the given principle.

Answer 20

The principle makes it clear that compensation is payable only if there is a breach of promise or contract.
In this case, X promised to repair Y’s car engine, and the facts do not state that X failed to do so — the repair of the engine was completed.
The accident occurred because of the bursting of a tyre, which has no connection to the work X agreed to perform.
Since the accident was unrelated to the engine repair, there is no causal link between X’s actions and the harm suffered by Y.
For compensation to be granted, the damage must be the direct result of the breach of promise.
Here, there was no breach, as X fulfilled his contractual obligation.
Therefore, under the given principle, Y has no legal right to claim compensation from X for the accident.

Answer 21

Section 34 IPC makes all participants liable for a criminal act if it is done in furtherance of the *common intention* of all.
Here, the common intention among Sanju, Dilbag, and Sushil was to commit burglary and housebreaking — not rape.
The offence of rape committed by Sanju was not part of the original plan and had no connection to the common intention shared by all three.
For Section 34 to apply to rape, it must be shown that the other two either shared the intention to commit rape or assisted/encouraged it in some way, but the facts show no such participation or encouragement.
Therefore:
- All three are liable for burglary and housebreaking, because those crimes were committed together as per their plan.
- Only Sanju will be liable for rape, because it was a separate, independent criminal act outside the agreed plan.
- Dilbag and Sushil cannot be held vicariously liable for rape under Section 34 since they neither participated in nor intended that crime.
Thus, option (c) correctly reflects the legal liability in this case.

Answer 22

The principle makes it clear that a minor is not competent to enter into a binding contract — any such agreement is void-ab-initio.
However, the law also states that nothing prevents a minor from enforcing a benefit conferred upon him by the other party.
This means that while a minor cannot be bound by obligations under a contract, he is legally entitled to claim benefits arising from a validly executed agreement in his favour.
In the facts, Lal executed a promissory note promising to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to Gurudutt once he reached the age of majority.
Here, the note is a unilateral promise made by Lal — there is no reciprocal obligation on Gurudutt’s part that would make it a contract requiring his competence.
Thus, even though Gurudutt was a minor at the time, the promissory note stands valid in his favour, and he can legally sue Lal to recover the amount.
The argument under option (c) about the Guardians and Wards Act does not apply here because there is no evidence that Gurudutt had a court-appointed guardian or that his property was under the Court of Wards.
Therefore, Gurudutt’s claim is valid under the principle that a minor can accept and enforce a legal benefit.

Answer 23

According to the principle, taking away a minor without parental consent constitutes an offence only if the minor is below the stated age limits: under 16 years for males and under 18 years for females.
However, the principle also makes it clear that if the parents’ consent is not obtained but the act is otherwise permitted under law, no offence occurs.
Here, the facts state that ‘A’ took away a girl who was below sixteen years — but the principle, as worded, applies only to situations where taking away constitutes an offence.
Given the way the principle is drafted in the question, the correct interpretation here is that ‘A’ has not committed an offence against either the girl or her parents under the scope of this principle.
Therefore, option (c) is correct — both the girl and her parents are outside the ambit of offence as defined here.

Answer 24

Under the principle, any agreement that tends to harm public interest or public welfare is void as being opposed to public policy.
One example of such agreements is the sale or purchase of public offices or influence over public appointments.
In this case, A promises to obtain public service employment for B in exchange for money.
This directly involves using influence or other means to secure a government job, which undermines the integrity and fairness of public service recruitment.
Such arrangements encourage corruption, nepotism, and unfair practices — all of which are harmful to the public interest.
Therefore, regardless of whether the amount is considered excessive or reasonable, the very object and consideration of this agreement are illegal under public policy principles.
Hence, the agreement is void from the outset, and neither party can enforce it in a court of law.

Answer 25

The right of private defence can only be exercised when there is a real, immediate threat to one’s body or property, and the defensive act must be proportionate to the danger faced.
In this case, the dog initially barked at X but then calmed down when commanded by its owner.
After the first encounter, the dog barked again from a distance but soon stopped and walked with its owner upon seeing X draw his pistol.
At this point, there was no imminent or continuing threat to X’s safety — the perceived danger had already passed.
Using lethal force after the threat had subsided amounts to exceeding the scope of the right of private defence.
The law does not protect an act of retaliation or punishment after the danger has ended; it only protects necessary actions taken to prevent harm in the moment.
Therefore, X’s shooting of the dog was excessive and outside the boundaries of lawful private defence, making him liable for killing the dog.

Answer 26

The principle states that when one party is in a position to dominate the will of the other party, the contract is enforceable only at the option of the party who was in such a dominating position.
A dominating position can arise from relationships of trust, dependency, or authority — for example, a doctor–patient relationship, where the patient may rely heavily on the doctor’s advice.
However, this provision does not automatically make every agreement between such parties void or unenforceable.
It simply gives the party in the dominant position the choice to enforce or not enforce the agreement.
In this case, the doctor treated the patient for fever, and the patient agreed to pay a total of ten lakh rupees, part of which (five lakh) was already paid.
After the treatment was completed and the patient recovered, the doctor was entitled to demand the remaining amount as per the original agreement.
The doctor, being the party in the dominant position, has the right to enforce the agreement against the patient if he chooses to do so.
Therefore, the contract is enforceable against the patient, and option (d) is correct.

Answer 27

The principle clearly distinguishes between actual legal rights and mere economic interests.
For an action in tort to succeed, there must be a violation of a legal right of the claimant — this is true even if there is no measurable financial damage.
Conversely, if a person suffers financial loss without a violation of any of their legal rights, they cannot claim compensation.
In the present case, ABCC had no legal right preventing T from starting another coaching centre, even if it was near ABCC’s location.
Competition in business, as long as it is fair and lawful, does not amount to a violation of legal rights, even if it causes a rival to lose customers and profits.
T was simply exercising his freedom to carry on a lawful trade or profession, which is recognized and protected under law.
While ABCC did suffer economic loss, this was not due to any infringement of their legal rights, but due to lawful competition.
Hence, under the given principle, T is not legally bound to compensate ABCC for the losses.

Answer 28

The principle protects registered trade unions, their officers, and members from civil suits for acts done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
However, this immunity applies only to actions connected with trade union activities, not personal matters.
Here, Soloman borrowed the money for his daughter’s higher education — a purely personal purpose, unrelated to the trade union’s functions or disputes.
Since the act was not done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, the statutory immunity under trade union law does not apply.
Therefore, the Bank is fully entitled to sue Soloman in his personal capacity to recover the loan.
The fact that he is the Secretary of the union is irrelevant in this context.

Answer 29

The principle invalidates agreements that absolutely restrict a party from approaching ordinary courts, unless the restriction is through a lawful alternative dispute resolution process recognized by law.
Arbitration is a legally recognized method of resolving disputes, governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in India.
It allows parties to settle disputes outside the regular court system while still ensuring enforceability of awards through the courts.
In this case, the clause stipulating that disputes will be referred only to arbitration is valid because arbitration is not an illegal restriction — it is an accepted and lawful dispute resolution process.
The rest of the contract remains valid, and the arbitration clause itself is enforceable.
Therefore, the entire agreement, including the arbitration clause, is valid under law.

Answer 30

The advertisement by the Soap Company is an offer to the public at large — specifically a unilateral contract.
In a unilateral contract, the offeror promises to give a reward or benefit in exchange for the performance of a specified act.
Here, the specified act is finding the ignition key in the soap bar before December 31, 2017.
Mr. Martin, although a tourist, found the key within the stipulated time period.
The principle of contract law states that acceptance of such an offer occurs through performance, not by prior communication of intent.
Therefore, Mr. Martin has fulfilled the condition laid down in the offer and is entitled to the reward — the Audi A3 Car — regardless of whether he was in India when the offer was published.
The fact that the hotel purchased the soap does not negate Martin’s performance of the condition.

Answer 31

Fraud requires both an act and the intent to defraud — that is, the intention to cause wrongful loss to another or wrongful gain to oneself.
In this case, B used A’s ATM card without permission to check the account balance.
While this action was unauthorized, it did not involve any withdrawal of funds or attempt to cause financial harm to A.
Since there was no intent to defraud — no plan to gain unfairly or cause loss — the action does not meet the legal definition of fraud.
It may be a breach of trust or a wrongful act in another legal sense, but under the given principle, it is not “fraudulent” conduct.
Therefore, option (b) is correct because the intent element required for fraud is missing.

Answer 32

Fundamental rights, as guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, are enforceable primarily against the state and its instrumentalities, not against private individuals or private entities.
Article 19(1)(c) guarantees the right to form associations or unions, and restrictions on this right can only be imposed by the state under Article 19(4) for specific reasons such as sovereignty, morality, and public order.
In the present case, the circular was issued by a private company, AB Chemicals (Pvt) Ltd., which is not the state or an instrumentality of the state.
Since fundamental rights are not directly enforceable against purely private entities, Navin cannot claim violation of his constitutional right in this context.
Any remedy he seeks would have to be under employment laws or contractual obligations, not under the Constitution’s fundamental rights framework.
Therefore, the High Court cannot issue a writ against the private company on the basis of fundamental rights violation, making option (c) correct.

Answer 33

The principle clearly states that if a person knows a fact or believes it to be true but actively hides it from the other party, with the intention of inducing the other party to enter into a contract, it amounts to fraud.
Insurance contracts are contracts of *uberrimae fidei* (utmost good faith), where the proposer is bound to disclose all material facts that could affect the insurer’s decision.
In this case, Zameer had undergone recent medical treatment for a serious ailment, which is undoubtedly a material fact for a life insurance policy.
By deliberately concealing this fact, Zameer misled the insurance company about his actual health condition.
This concealment was not accidental — it was intentional and aimed at ensuring the insurer would proceed with issuing the policy.
Such conduct satisfies the requirement of “active concealment” with the intent to induce the other party, thereby fulfilling the definition of fraud under the principle.
Therefore, Zameer’s act is fraudulent, and the insurer could avoid the contract on this basis.

Answer 34

The principle of natural justice includes two key rules: (1) *Nemo judex in causa sua* — no one should be a judge in their own cause (rule against bias), and (2) *Audi alteram partem* — hear the other side before deciding.
The second rule requires that before any adverse decision such as dismissal is taken, the person affected must be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
In this case, the employer dismissed X solely on the basis of a complaint from Y without giving X any chance to explain or defend himself.
This action clearly violates the right to a fair hearing, which is central to the principles of natural justice.
Even if the complaint was serious, the employer was bound to conduct an impartial inquiry and hear X’s version before taking disciplinary action.
Since this was not done, the dismissal is invalid due to breach of natural justice.

Answer 35

Step 1: Understanding the Principle
The Employees Compensation Act, 1923, provides that an employer is bound to pay compensation for injuries to a workman if two key conditions are satisfied:
- The injury must have been caused by an accident arising out of the employment.
- The accident must have occurred in the course of employment.
Here, the phrase “arising out of” means that the work or duties assigned to the employee must be a contributing cause to the accident.
The phrase “in the course of” means that the accident must have occurred during the period of employment while the employee was engaged in his work duties or anything incidental to them.
Step 2: Applying the Principle to Facts
In this case, S was given a specific work-related instruction by his employer M — to submit a report to the Government Labour Office.
S carried out this task and was on his way back when he met a friend and took a short tea break.
While this short detour might seem like a deviation, the main journey was still within the framework of his employment duty — he was returning to the office after completing the assigned work.
After receiving the message from his office, S immediately resumed his work-related journey back to the office.
Step 3: Determining Liability
The accident occurred while S was on his way back to the office in direct response to his employer’s message, meaning that his journey was connected to his employment duties.
Under the principle of “notional extension” of employment, even small breaks during official journeys do not break the chain of employment if the employee is still in the course of carrying out employer’s instructions.
Thus, the accident clearly arose out of and was in the course of S’s employment.
Step 4: Eliminating Wrong Options
Option 1 is wrong — the negligence of the truck driver does not remove the employer’s liability under the Act if the accident was employment-related.
Option 3 is irrelevant — the type of hospital (private or government) does not affect liability.
Option 4 is partly true in reasoning but incomplete — the liability arises not just because of the message but because the journey itself was part of employment.
\[ \boxed{\text{Therefore, the employer is liable to pay compensation to S under the Act.}} \]