PLUS

Legal Aptitude 01
Introduction of Legal Reasoning

Number of Questions : 10 CEX–9235/21-B

1. Principle: Whoever intending to take 2. Principle: Whoever at an election votes in

dishonestly any moveable property out of the the name of any person whether living or dead
possession of any person without that or in a fictitious name or who having voted
person's consent, moves that property in order once at such election applies again for a
to such taking is said to commit theft. voting paper in his name, commits the offence
of impersonation at an election.
Explanation: A thing so long as it is attached
to the earth is not the subject of theft; but it Facts: Greatly influenced by the Election
becomes so, as soon as it is severed from Commission's campaign, X and Y, father and
the earth. son, both illiterate and indigent farmers,
decided to vote. However, due to his old age
Facts: X, misinformed by Y's servant, went and infirmity, X could not move on the election-
to the farmhouse of Y and started cutting a day and he asked Y to cast his vote to a
redwood tree standing there. It was the time particular party on his behalf. Y while doing
of evening and Y was taking a stroll in the so was caught and prosecuted.
vicinity. When he heard the sound, he
immediately proceeded to the spot. When Y (a) Y has not committed the offence of
saw X approaching him, he threw the axe and impersonation at the election as he had
ran away. no guilty mind.
(b) Y has committed the offence of
(a) X shall be guilty of theft. impersonation at the election as he was
(b) X shall not be guilty of theft. casting vote pretending to be X.
(c) Y's servant shall be guilty of theft. (c) Y has not committed the offence of
(d) Both X and Y's servant shall be impersonation at the election as he was
guilty of theft. duly authorized by X to do so.
(d) None of the above.

Legal Aptitude – 1 Page 1

3. Principle: The real significance of damage Code, there lies an appeal against the
in law can be illustrated by the maxim injuria rejection of the plaint by the Court. X preferred
sine damnum. In cases of injuria sine an appeal and sought to set aside the decision
damnum, it is the infringement of a legal right of the Taxing Officer.
without any actual loss or damage and the
person whose right is so infringed has a right (a) Decision of Taxing Officer is conclusive
to claim damages. and final which cannot be set aside
(b) Decision of Taxing Officer may be set aside
Facts: X, in a commercial transaction, made in the appeal
a payment to Y through cheque. However, (c) Decision of Taxing Officer cannot be
cheque bounced despite there being sufficient reconsidered in the appeal
amount in the account of X. Y threatened to (d) None of the above
bring a legal action against X. Upon this X
sues the bank for the damages. At the very 5. Principle: Whoever dishonestly
first hearing, the bank sought to make the misappropriates to his own use any moveable
payment, and argued that since no damage property which has come to him without any
had yet occurred to X; hence, he had no element of guilty mind on his part, shall be
cause of action and so, the present suit should considered to have committed the offence of
be dismissed at this stage itself. X argued Dishonest Misappropriation of Property.
that he is entitled to get compensation from
the bank. Explanation: Misappropriation is deemed to
have occurred when the efforts expected of
(a) X is entitled to get compensation based
an ordinary prudent person in the given
on the maxim injuria sine damnum.
circumstances were not undertaken.
(b) X is not entitled to get compensation
based on the maxim injuria sine damnum. Facts: X goes to an exclusive birthday bash
(c) X is entitled to get compensation because of a top notch film star organized in the crystal
the bank waited for X to file the ball room of a famous five star hotel. When
present suit. he just finished a drink, he realized that there
(d) None of the above. was a huge diamond in the glass. In a state
of excitement and confusion, he somehow
4. Principle: The Court Fee Act provides that slipped it into his coat's pocket. He remained
the matter of Court Fee once decided by the there for two hours till the party ended hoping
Taxing Officer of the Court shall be conclusive that someone would ask for the diamond and
and final though in a limited sense. The he would return it. However, nobody inquired
implication of this law is that the decision of for the same and he left the hotel with other
the Taxing Officer on the Court Fee cannot guests. What offence, if any, has X
be a ground for preferring appeal; however if committed?
an appeal is preferred on some other ground,
the matter of Court Fee can be reopened (a) Dishonest Misappropriation of Property as
therein. he did not make efforts to find out the
owner of the diamond.
Facts: X sought to file a plaint in a Court at (b) No Dishonest Misappropriation of
Gurgaon. The Taxing Officer of the Court Property as he was contemplating to
decided that the Court Fee paid was not return the diamond.
proper. The Court asked X to pay the proper (c) Theft.
Court Fee which he failed to comply within (d) Dishonest Misappropriation of Property as
the given time period. Upon this, the Court the case is concerned with a huge and
rejected the plaint. Under the Civil Procedure costly diamond.

Page 2 Legal Aptitude – 1

6. Principle: Every agreement in restraint of the (a) The property will be equally distributed
marriage of any person, other than a minor, between Raheel and Wakeel.
is void. (b) The property will be passed on to Raheel
to the exclusion of all others.
Facts: A and B are both married to C. C dies (c) The property will be passed on to Wakeel
leaving a large estate behind and according
to the exclusion of all others.
to his will the estate is to be divided equally
(d) The property will be taken over by the Waqf
between A and B. A dispute arose between A
Board.
and B but the same was solved amicably and
A and B entered into an agreement. As per
the terms of the agreement, it was agreed 8. Principle: In order to succeed in an action
that in the event of either of the widow for defamation, the false statement must refer
remarrying, she would forfeit her rights in the to the plaintiff.
property left behind by their husband. After
some time, B got remarried and claimed her Facts: A newspaper carried a news article in
share in the property left behind by C. A which it was stated that Amit Kumar has been
contested the claim on the basis of the convicted on charges of bribery. The story was
agreement and B challenged the agreement true about one Amit Kumar, Jharsa Gaon,
on the ground that it places a restraint on working as a clerk in the education
marriage. Decide.
department. An action for defamation was
brought by another Amit Kumar, another
(a) The agreement is void as it places restraint
resident of Jharsa Gaon, who was an executive
on marriage of either A or B.
(b) The agreement is not void as it does not officer, working in the Public Works
place any restraint of marriage either by Department. He alleged that due to the
A or B. publication of the news article, his peers have
(c) The agreement is void as it places restraint started avoiding him and it has affected his
on remarriage of either A or B. social relations. Decide.
(d) The agreement is void as it against public
policy as C had taken two wives. (a) The newspaper is not liable for defamation
as the story was true.
7. Principle: The Sunni Mohammedan law does (b) The newspaper is liable for defamation as
not recognize the doctrine of representation the story referred to Amit Kumar, the
for the purpose of succession.
plaintiff.
(c) The newspaper is not liable for defamation
Facts: Aqeel, a Sunni Mohammedan, had two
as they did not intend to defame Amit
sons Shaqeel and Raheel. Shaqeel dies
during the lifetime of Aqeel leaving behind his Kumar, the executive.
only son Wakeel. Subsequently , Aqeel died (d) The newspaper is liable as the statement
leaving behind him his son Raheel and his published is defamatory in nature.
grandson Wakeel, the surviving son of
Shaqeel. A dispute arose as regarding
succession of the property of Aqeel. Decide.

Legal Aptitude – 1 Page 3

9. Principle: Nuisance means an unlawful 10. Principle: Maintenance means helping a
interference with the person's use or party in civil proceedings by rendering active
enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in assistance without lawful justification.
connection with it.
Facts: A filed a case against B for nuisance.
Facts: A, B and C are neighbours, having C, A's friend used to drop him to the court
houses on adjacent plots. B occupied the everyday during the course of the proceedings
center plot and A's plot was to his left and C's and would also pick him up after the
plot was to his right. C planted a tree at the proceedings were over. The suit of nuisance
edge of his plot bordering B's plot. A was was decided in favour of A and an injunction
renovating his house and the workers used order was passed against B by the court. B
to work 24 hours a day, in two shifts. The filed a suit against C, alleging maintenance
constant noise from A's site made it difficult against C. Decide.
for B to live peacefully. B filed a suit of nuisance
against A and C. Decide. (a) C can be held liable for maintenance as
he aided A in proceedings against him.
(a) The suit of nuisance will terminate in favour (b) C cannot be held liable for maintenance
of B. as did not aid A in the proceedings.
(b) No suit of nuisance lies against A. (c) C can be held liable as the aid was given
(c) No suit of nuisance lies against C. to A without any lawful justification.
(d) In the given fact scenario, no suit of (d) C cannot be held liable as he was not a
nuisance shall lie against either A or C. party to the original suit.

© LST 2020 Replication or other unauthorised use of this material is prohibited by the copyright laws of India

Page 4 Legal Aptitude – 1

 CEX–9235/21-B Legal Aptitude – 1 PLUS
Answers and Explanations

1 b 2 b 3 a 4 b 5 a 6 b 7 b 8 b 9 c 10 b

1. b It is clear from the Explanation that a thing so long as it person in the given circumstances were not
is attached to the earth is not the subject of theft; but undertaken. The facts reflect that the diamond came
it becomes so, as soon as it is severed from the earth. into the possession of X without any element of guilty
Now, the facts reflect that X has just started cutting mind on his part. But then X did not undertake the
the tree when Y heard the sound and 'immediately' efforts expected of an ordinary prudent person in the
proceed to the spot. In these circumstances, it cannot given circumstances. In the given situation, he should
be considered that the tree had been severed from have made inquiry on his own to find out the true
the earth by X; and hence, it cannot be the subject owner of the diamond in the party. Failing which, he
matter of theft by any person. shall be considered to have committed the offence of
Dishonest Misappropriation of Property.
2. b The element of mental element is totally excluded by
the given principle. It simply says that whoever at an 6. b The agreement is not void as it does not place any
election votes in the name of any person whether restraint of marriage either by A or B. The agreement
living or dead or in a fictitious name or who having nowhere states that either A or B cannot marry. It
voted once at such election applies again for a voting merely states that if either of them marries, that person
paper in his name, commits the offence of shall forfeit her right in the share of their deceased
impersonation at an election. Hence, whatever had husband. Therefore the agreement is binding on both
been the impression of Y while casting the vote, he the parties.
shall be held liable for the offence of impersonation at
the election. 7. b The principle clearly states that the Sunni Muslim Law
does not recognize the doctrine of the representation
3. a Although no actual loss occurred to X till the point of for succession. A person may inherit property only
time he filed the suit against bank, but his 'legal right' when he is direct heir. In this case, as long as Shaqeel
against the bank that it shall honour his cheques when was alive he had a share in his father's property, but
he has sufficient money in his account was infringed with his death, the right to inherit property does not
upon by the bank. Hence, based upon the given maxim, pass onto his son, his son being his representative.
X shall have a right to damages against the bank even Therefore after the death of the Aqeel, the entire
if the bank has sought to make the requisite payment. property vests in Raheel, he being the direct and only
descendent of Aqeel.
4. b The principle provides that the matter of Court fee
once decided by the Taxing Officer of the Court shall 8. b A statement can be held defamatory if a person to
be conclusive and final. In the present case, the appeal whom it was published could reasonably infer that
has been preferred against the rejection of the plaint the statement referred to the person i.e. if in the
by the Court, and not directly against the decision of estimation of the members of the society, the publication
the Taxing Officer. Hence, in that appeal, the decision injures the reputation of the plaintiff, it is defamatory. It
of the Taxing Officer can be reconsidered and may be is no defence to say, that the respondent did not know
set aside, if required. the plaintiff, or the respondent did not intend to injure
the reputation of the plaintiff. In this case, the people
5. a The Principle says that whoever dishonestly known to Amit Kumar, the executive, thought the
misappropriates to his own use any moveable property statement referred to Amit Kumar, and therefore he
which has come to him without any element of guilty started to avoid him and it also affected his social
mind on his part, shall be considered to have committed relations. Therefore it can be clearly established that
the offence of Dishonest Misappropriation of Property. other members of the society took the statement as
Also that misappropriation is deemed to have occurred referring to Amit Kumar, the executive. Hence the
when the efforts expected of an ordinary prudent statement is defamatory.

Legal Aptitude – 1 Page 1

9. c In the present fact scenario, a suit of nuisance shall 10. b In this case C cannot be held liable. Liability in
lies against only A, C cannot be held liable for nuisance maintenance cases arises only when there has been
as his interference is direct, against the possession an intermeddling with litigation in which the intermeddler
of B and through tangible object, therefore constituting has no concern. In this case, C did not intermeddle
trespass rather than nuisance. In case of A, the with the litigation, the act of dropping A and picking him
constant disturbance caused by construction noises up from the court cannot, by any stretch of imagination,
causes' interference in B enjoyment of his property, can be held as intermeddling with litigation. Therefore
thereby constituting nuisance. The interference caused the suit cannot be decided in favour of B.
by A, is consequential and not direct, it is not against
possession but against peaceful enjoyment of property
and through intangible means rather than tangible or
material objects. Therefore a suit of nuisance shall lie
against only A and not C.

Page 2 Legal Aptitude – 1