Under evidence law 'fact' does not include:
Show Hint
- Any thing perceived by senses
- Any thing not perceived by senses
- Any mental condition
- Relation of things perceived by senses
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understand what is considered a "fact" in evidence law.
- Under the Indian Evidence Act, a "fact" refers to anything that can be perceived by the senses or anything that is relevant to the case. Mental condition, being subjective, is not considered a "fact" under the Evidence Act.
Step 2: Conclusion.
- Mental condition is not considered a "fact" under evidence law.
Top Questions on Law of Evidence
- In India, which of the following evidence is admissible under the evidence law:
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Law of Evidence
- Arrange the following in sequence as they are provided under the evidence law:
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Law of Evidence
- Arrange the following provisions as they appear in proceedings according to the evidence law:
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Law of Evidence
- In India, which of the following evidence is admissible under the evidence law:
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Law of Evidence
- Which among the following are covered under the defences of nuisance?
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- LLM
- Law of Evidence
Questions Asked in CUET PG exam
Match List-I with List-II\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Provision} & \textbf{Case Law} \\ \hline \text{(A) Strict Liability} & \text{(1) Ryland v. Fletcher} \\ \hline \text{(B) Absolute Liability} & \text{(II) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India} \\ \hline \text{(C) Negligence} & \text{(III) Nicholas v. Marsland} \\ \hline \text{(D) Act of God} & \text{(IV) MCD v. Subhagwanti} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- Law of Torts
Match List-I with List-II\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{List-1} & \textbf{List-II} \\ \hline \text{(A) Hadley v. Baxendale} & \text{(1) Undue Influence} \\ \hline \text{(B) Henkel v. Pape} & \text{(II) Coercion} \\ \hline \text{(C) Manu Singh v. Umadat Pandey} & \text{(III) Quantum of Damages} \\ \hline \text{(D) Chikkam Amiraju v. Seshamma} & \text{(IV) Mistake} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- Contract Law
Match List-I with List-II
\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{List-1} & \textbf{List-II} \\ \hline \text{(A) Complete Justice} & \text{(I) Article 137} \\ \hline \text{(B) Special Leave Petition} & \text{(II) Article 131} \\ \hline \text{(C) Review of the Judgments} & \text{(III) Article 142} \\ \hline \text{(D) Original Jurisdiction} & \text{(IV) Article 136} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- Judicial Process
Match List-I with List-II
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- Indian Constitution
Match List-I with List-II
\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{List-1} & \textbf{List-II} \\ \hline \text{(A) Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab} & \text{(I) Separation of powers} \\ \hline \text{(B) Delhi Laws Act, 1912} & \text{(II) Delegated legislation} \\ \hline \text{(C) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India} & \text{(III) Doctrine of proportionality} \\ \hline \text{(D) Om Kumar v. Union of India} & \text{(IV) Post decisional hearing} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
- CUET (PG) - 2025
- Administrative Law