Legal Aptitude for CLAT

About Legal Aptitude for CLAT

This page is prepared for CLAT Aspirants and consist of questions and detail solutions of all questions asked in the sheet. Find legal aptitude for CLAT Questions and answer. This page consist of selected questions of legal aptitude for CLAT taken from previous year papers and few questions are prepared by experts of Physics Wallah.

All aspirants who are preparing for CLAT must download all sheet and start solving the questions given in sheet. Check out CLAT UG syllabus

Find Below free pdf of legal aptitude for CLAT Questions Sheet

Syllabus for legal aptitude for CLAT and what are the thinks required

1.Legal Awareness Law

a.Its Nature and Classification

b.Legal Terms

c.Important Indian Acts

d.Legal Maxims


f.Important Treaties and Conventions

2.Legal Reasoning

a.Criminal Law

b.Contract Law

c.Law of Torts

Sample Questions legal aptitude for CLAT

Objective Questions legal aptitude for CLAT With detail Explanation 

1.Which is true about the following statement?

(a)Charge-sheet is signed by complainant only

(b)Charge-sheet s signed by both complainant and opposite party

(c)Charge-sheet is signed by the Investigating Officer and sent to court

(d)Charge-sheet is signed by Magistrate only


A Charge-sheet is a formal document of accusation prepared by law-enforcement agencies in India. It is distinct from the First Information Report (FIR) (which is the core document that describes a crime that has been committed), usually refers to one or more FIRs, and charges an individual or organization for (some or all of) the crimes specified in those FIR(s).

2.Which of the following Muslim laws applies in India?

(a)Muslim Penal Law

(b)Muslim Law of Evidence

(c)Muslim Law of Sales of Goods

(d)Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986


3.According to the Constitution of India, concentration of wealth violates

(a)the Directive Principles

(b)the Concept of the Welfare State

(c)the Spirit of the Constitution

(d)the Right to Freedom


4.Indian Evidence Act deals privilege

(a)as a right only

(b)as a duty only

(c)as a right and duty both

(d)neither as a right nor as a duty


This Act is divided into three parts and there are 11 chapters in total under this Act.

Part 1 deals with relevancy of the facts. There are two chapters under this part: the first chapter is a preliminary chapter which introduces to the Evidence Act and the second chapter specifically deals with the relevancy of the facts.

Part 2 consists of chapters from 3 to 6. Chapter 3 deals with facts which need not be proved, chapter 4 deals with oral evidence, chapter 5 deals with documentary evidence and chapter 6 deals with circumstances when documentary evidence has been given preference over the oral evidence.

Part 3 : The last part, that is part 3, consists of chapter 7 to chapter 11. Chapter 7 talks about the burden of proof. Chapter 8 talks about estoppel, chapter 9 talks about witnesses, chapter 10 talks about examination of witnesses, and last chapter which is chapter 11 talks about improper admission and rejection of evidence.

5.Which one of the following Provisions of the Indian Penal Code defines 'Unlawful Assembly'?

(a) Section 141

(b) Section 142

(c) Section 146

(d) Section 149


6.Under the following which is absolute incapacity for marriage?

(a) Consanguinity

(b) Affinity

(c) Fosterage(

d) All of these


7.Under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 a person is said to have notice of a fact when

(a)he actually knows the fact

(b)may have knowledge about the fact

(c)could with reasonable cause know the fact

(d)is not at all aware of the fact


8.Assertion (A) A void contract is not necessarily illegal.

Reason (R) Every illegal contract is void.

(a)Both A and R are true but R is the correct explanation of A.

(b) Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A.

(c) A is true but R is false.

(d) A is false but R is true.


9.Assertion (A) The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights is guaranteed 'as a Fundamental Rights.

Reason (R) The Supreme Court of India has been appointed as the guardian of the Constitution.

(a)Both A and R are true but R is the correct explanation of A.

(b) Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A.

(c) A is true but R is false.

(d) A is false but R is true.


10.Assertion (A) The essence of joint liability under Section-149 of the IPC is that the criminal act must have been done with a view to fulfill the common object of an unlawful assembly.Reason (R) Any sudden and provocative act done by a member of an unlawful assembly would render the other members of that assembly liable.

(a)Both A and R are true but R is the correct explanation of A.

(b) Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A.

(c) A is true but R is false.

(d) A is false but R is true.


10.Legal Awareness - Legal Maxims – Medium 

11.Whether confession made to a Police Officer (while not in custody) by an accused of an offence can be proved against him and is a . . . . .  evidence.

(a)admissible(b)not admissible

(c)partially admissible(d)None of the above


11.Legal Awareness - Legal Maxims – Easy 

12.Which of the following contracts cannot be specifically enforced as per the provision of Section 14 of the Act?

(a)Execution of a formal deed of partnership

(b)Contract for the construction of any building or execution of any other work on land

(c)Contract which is determinable in its nature

(d)Contract to execute a mortgage or furnish any other security for repayment of any loan which the borrower is not willing to repay at once Transfer of Property Act


12.Legal Reasoning - Contract Law – Medium

13.Where on a Transfer of Property, an interest therein is created in favour of a person to take effect only on the happening of a specified uncertain event, the Transfer is called

(a)conditional transfer(b)transfer by interest

(c)absolute transfer(d)contingent transfer


13.Legal Awareness - Important Indian Acts – Medium 

14.Match schedule one and two and choose the appropriate answer

Schedule ISchedule II

A. Concurrent list1. Constitution of Japan

B. Rule of Law2. Constitution of Ireland

C. Directive Principle of State Policy3. British Constitution

D. Procedure Established by Law4. Constitution of Australia


(a)1234 (b)2431

(c)1342 (d)4321


14.Legal Awareness – Constitution – Medium 

15.An instrument as defined under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 means

(a)a negotiable instrument(b)a transferable instrument

(c)a non-testamentary instrument(d)a will


15.Legal Awareness - Important Indian Acts – Easy 

Facts based questions for legal aptitude for CLAT

Problem : (Q. No. 16 – Q.No. 20)


A.Whoever intending to take any moveable property out of the possession of any person, without that person's consent, moves that property out of his or her possession, is said to commit theft.

B.A person who without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property shall be guilty of causing criminal damage.

C.Damage means any impairment of the value of a property.


Veena, an old lady of 78 yr, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it became quite difficult to clean her room. After she aied, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there.There was a pile of odd newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes. Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky was sorting and throwing away the newspapers, he was very surprised to find a beautiful painting in between two sheets of paper. He thought that Indira probably wouldn't want this old painting back, especially because it was torn in several places and the colour was fading. He took the painting home, mounted it on a wooden frame and hung it on the wall of his bedroom. Unknown to him, the painting was an old masterpiece, and worth twenty thousand rupees. Before mounting the painting, Lucky pasted it on a plain sheet of paper so that it does not tear any more. By doing so, he made its professional restoration very difficult and thereby reduce 1 its value by half. Luck’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Luck/s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.

16.Has Lucky committed theft?

(a)Yes, Lucky has committed theft of the newspapers and the painting

(b)No, Lucky has not committed theft because he had Veena's consent

(c)Yes, Lucky has committed theft of the painting, but not of the newspapers

(d)No, Lucky has not committed theft because he has not moved the painting out of Veena's possession

17.Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?

(a)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting

(b)Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the painting

(c)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore

(d)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting

18.If Lucky had discovered the painting before leaving Indira's house rather than at the rubbish dump, would he have been guilty of theft in this case?

(a)Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the newspapers and the paintings

(b)No, he would not be guilty of theft

(c)Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the painting

(d)None of the above

19.Is Kamala guilty of theft?

(a)No, Kamala is not guilty of theft since the person she took the painting from (Lucky) was not its lawful owner.

(b)No, Kamala is not guilty of theft since she took the painting only with the motive of returning it to Indira.

(c)Yes, Kamala is guilty of theft as she took the painting out of Luck’s possession without his consent.

(d)None of the above

20.Which of the following propositions could be inferred from the facts and the rules specified?

(a)Kamala is guilty of criminal damage as the person she took the painting from (Lucky) was not its lawful owner.

(b)Kamala is guilty of criminal damage as she took the painting without Lucky's consent

(c)Kamala is not guilty of criminal damage as the painting has not been completely destroyed

(d)None of the above.






16-20.Legal Reasoning - Criminal Law – Medium 

21.Principle: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.

Fact: Mahesh was driver working in a company Lipton and Co. One day, the Manager asked him to drop a customer at the airport and get back at the earliest. On his way back from the airport, he happened to see his fiancé Roopa waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to drop her at home, which happened to be close to his office. She got into the car and soon thereafter; the car somersaulted due to the negligence of Mahesh. Roopa was thrown out of the car and suffered multiple injuri compensation from Lipton and Co.

(a)Lipton and Co., shall be liable, because Mahesh was in the course of employment at the time of accident. 

(b)Lipton and Co., shall not be liable, Mahesh was not in the course of employment when he took Roopa inside the car.

(c)Roopa got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.

(d)None of the above 


Lipton & Co is liable to pay compensation to Roopa because Mahesh had given lift to Rupa in the course of his employment. 

21.Legal Reasoning – Tort – Medium 

22.Principles: “Volenti non fit injuria”, a well-established legal principle, means that a person has no legal remedy for the injury caused by an act which he has consented. 

Fact : An old lady was walking in a narrow one-way lane in the opposite direction. It was nighttime and there was no street lighting. A car moving in right direction but without headlights knocked her down since the driver could not see her. She filed a suit against the driver. 

(a)She would lose, because she violated the traffic rules in the first instance. 

(b)She would lose, because she voluntarily exposed herself to risks. 

(c)The driver would lose, because he drove without proper headlights. 

(d)None of these 


The lady was walking on a one way lane and as such there are no traffic rules applicable to pedestrians. Now the car driver was driving his car without headlights. Which is a gross violation on his part. Therefore, he is liable to the old lady because had he driven the car with headlights on he could have averted the collision.

22.Legal Reasoning – Law of Tort – Medium 

23.Principle : Whoever, having been captured by the enemy or made a prisoner of war, voluntarily serves or aids the enemy shall be punished with death.

Facts : John is a Jawan in the Indian Army. During the 1971 war, he was captured by the Pakistani forces. While a prisoner he is tortured and made to divulge the positions of the Indian Army. Due to this information, Pakistani Air Force attacked Indian positions causing extensive damage to life and property. After India's victory, the Pakistani forces surrender the Indian Prisoners of War which includes John. Is John liable to a sentence of death?

(a)No, because he was tortuted

(b)Yes, because his information led to loss of many innocent Indian lives

(c)No, because he did not aid the enemy "voluntarily" which is the prime requirement for application of the penal provision

(d)None of the above


23.Legal Reasoning - Criminal Law – Medium 

24.Principle : Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believe himself to be, bound by law to do it. 

Facts : ‘A’, an officer of a court of justice, being ordered by that court to arrest ‘Y’, and after due enquiry, believing ‘Z’ to be ‘Y’, arrests ‘Z’, decides 

(a)A has committed no offence. 

(b)A has committed offence. 

(c)A has committed no offence because being ordered by the court. 

(d)A has committed an offence of arresting ‘Z’ by misrepresenting ‘Y’ 


General categories mistake of fact section 76 of the IPC excuses a person who has done what by law is an offence under a mistake of facts that lead her to believe in good faith that she was bound by law to do such an act. 

24.Legal Reasoning - Criminal Law – Medium 

25.Principle: A master shall be liable for the acts of his servants done in the course of employment.

Fact : HMT, a public sector undertaking, is operating a number of bus services for its employees in Bangalore. These buses are quite distinct in their appearance and carry the board "for HMT employees only". M, a villager from neighbouring state, was waiting for a regular bus in one of the bus stops in Bangalore. A bus belonging to HMT happened to stop nearby and number of people got into the bus. M, without realizing that it was HMT bus, got into the bus and soon thereafter, the bus met with an accident due to driver's negligence. M, along with several others, was injured in the accident. M seeks to file a suit against HMT claiming damages.

(a)M will succeed, because he got into the bus without realizing that it was HMT bus. 

(b)M will not succeed, because it was for him to find out whether it was a public transport.

(c)M will succeed, because the driver was anyhow duty-bound to drive carefully.

(d)None of these


Applying the given principle it is clear that HMT Company is liable to 'M'. It is immaterial whether 'M' is an employee of HMT or not

25.Legal Reasoning - Law of Torts – Medium 

26.Principle: A person has no remedy against an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.

Fact : Raj was in a hurry to get to the airport to catch the plane and he hired a taxi run by Capital Taxi Company, well known in that locality. Raj asked the driver to drive fast. In the city zone, there was a speed limit of 60 km per hour and the driver, rather reluctantly, drove quite fast at times 90km per hour to reach the airport in time. As a result, the driver lost control and hit an obstacle and Raj was badly injured. Raj filed a suit against the Taxi Company.

(a)The Taxi Company would not be liable since Raj asked the driver to drive fast. 

(b)The Taxi Company would be liable, because the driver ought not to have exceeded the speed limit.

(c)The Taxi Company would be liable, because "driving fast" should only mean driving within the speed limits prescribed by law.

(d)None of the above


Although Raj urged the taxi driver to drive fast. "driving fast only meant driving within the speed limits". However. the driver drove at 90 kms per hour which was way beyond the permissible limit of 60 kms per hour. Raj had not "consented" to be driven at such high speed. Hence Raj can claim compensation from the taxi company.

26.Legal Reasoning - Contract Law – Medium

27.Principle When an offer is accepted by a person to whom it is made, it becomes a promise. But this promise will become legally binding only when the acceptance of the offer is unconditional.

Facts Ram makes an offer to sell his house to Shyam for Rs. 50 lakh. Shyam accepts this offer but wants to pay the price of the house in five quarterly installments. Ram does not agree to it. Thereafter Shyam agrees to pay the price of the house in the way as originally desired by Ram. But Ram does not reply to it. Can Shyam compel Ram to sell his house to him?

(a)Shyam can compel Ram to sell his house because Shyam ultimately agrees to pay the price as originally desired by Ram

(b)Shyam can compel Ram to sell his house because Shyam in the first instance substantially complied with the desire of Ram

(c)Shyam can compel Ram to sell his house because Ram's offer does not exclude the payment of price in installments

(d)Shyam cannot compel Ram to sell his house because Shyam imposes a new condition about payment of price of the house while accepting the offer which is not ultimately accepted by Ram


According to the principle mentioned in the question, promise becomes a legal binding only when the acceptance of the offer is unconditional, but here Shyam did not accepted the offer of Ram as it was proposed. Shyam mentioned a condition that he wants to pay the price in the five quarterly installments, so according to the principle, Shyam cannot compel Ram to sell his house.

27.Legal Reasoning - Contract Law – Medium 

28.Principle All citizens shall have the Fundamental Right to carry on any occupation, trade or business. But reasonable restrictions on the exercise of such rights can be imposed by law in the interest of the general public.

Facts A large number of persons had been carrying on the business of dyeing and printing in Rajkot area for the last 25 yr providing employment to about 30000 families. From these business places untreated dirty water was being discharged on the roads thereby causing damage to the public health. A notice, therefore, was given to close this business till necessary measures to protect public health as provided under the environmental statutes were taken by those businessmen.

(a)Notice cannot be justified as it will cause loss of employment to 30000 families

(b)Notice cannot be justified as it amounts to violation of the Fundamental Right of the persons who have been carrying on the business for the last 25 yr

(c)The notice cannot be justified on the ground of damage to public health as the persons in that area have been voluntarily residing for long and have become used to that environment

(d)The notice can be justified as the right to business is not absolute and reasonable restriction can be imposed by law in the interest of the public


Fundamental Rights provided by the Indian constitution gives us the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business, but reasonable restrictions can be imposed by the provisions of law, in the interest of general public. In the present scenario, the notice is justified as the right to business is not absolute, so reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of public.

28.Legal Awareness - Important Indian Acts – Difficult 

29.Principle : Acceptance must be communicated to the offer himself. A communication to any other person is no communication in the eyes of law. 

Facts : Ramesh wants to purchase Vasant’s residential house situated in Indira Vikas Colony, Kanpur for Rs. 5 lakh. He writes to Vasant that he would assume his offer has been accepted unless he hears to the contrary from him (Vasant) within a month. Vasant does not reply but directs his agents M/S Fairdeals, a property dealer not to sell the above said property to anybody else because he (Vasant) wants to sell it to Ramesh. However M/S Fairdeals sell the property to Kanti. Can Ramesh file a suit seeking enforcement of contract against Vasant. 

(a)No, he cannot because an offer cannot considered to be accepted unless its acceptance should be communicated. 

(b)Yes, Ramesh can file a suit against Vasant. 

(c)No, because Kanti bought the property and now he is the owner. 

(d)No, Ramesh cannot file a suit against Vasant.


29.Legal Reasoning - Contract Law – Medium 

30.Principle : Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. 

Facts : The accused ‘X’ was attacked when he was asleep at night by his brother ‘Y’ who tried to strangulate him. Apprehending imminent death the accused aimed a below at his assailant brother with a piece of bamboo on which he could lay hand and the blow struck the head of his intervening father ‘F’ as a result of which he ultimately died, decides. 

(a)Father ‘F’ was killed by ‘X’ intentionally. 

(b)Father ‘F’ was killed by X and Y accidentally. 

(c)‘X’ is given the protection of section 106 IPC. 

(d)Accused ‘X’ exercised his lawful right of self defense and the below fell on the head of his father by accident and misfortune and fully protected by section 80 and 106. 


Section 80 of the IPC exempts the commission of any innocent of lawful act, done in an innocent or lawful manner, which has led to an unforeseen result that may have ensued from an accident or misfortune. For the accused to avail of this exception, it must be shown that due care and caution wee exercised at the time of commission of the act. 

30.Legal Reasoning - Criminal Law – Medium 

31.Principle : Generally an agreement without consideration is not valid. Therefore, in order to make a valid agreement, some consideration which may have some value in the eyes of law, is essentially required.

Facts : William has an old car of which he makes seldom use. He voluntarily enters into an agreement with Smith to sell this car for rupees ten thousand. Thereafter one Anson approaches William and offers to buy that car for rupees 1 lakh as the car was one which Anson has been searching for long. Now, William wants to cancel his agreement with Smith and refuses to deliver the car to him saying that consideration price for the car promised by Smith is negligible and therefore, agreement with him cannot be said to be valid one.

(a)William can cancel his agreement with Smith as the consideration involved in that is really inadequate

(b)William cannot cancel his agreement with Smith as the sale of car for rupees ten thousand was voluntary and this price has some value in the eyes of law

(c)William can cancel his agreement with Smith as he was ignorant about the value/price of the car for which it could be sold

(d)William can cancel his agreement with Smith as he is entitled to get full market value/ price of his car


 As per the principle mentioned in the question and also supported by the Indian Contract Act, 1872 generally an agreement without consideration is not valid. In this case, William cannot cancel his agreement with Smith because the sale of car to Smith for Rs. 10000 was a voluntary act and this price or consideration has some value in the eyes of law.

31.Legal Reasoning - Contract Law – Difficult 

32.Principle : Whoever while intentionally and dishonestly taking away the moveable property of any other person without the person consent or while attempt to doing so the offender causes or attempt to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or put such person the fear of the same then he commits ‘Robbery’

Facts : ‘Bunty’, ring leader of a group of person committing crime by using motorcycle, standing outside near the in-entrance / exit of a bank on his motor cycle one person carrying a bag came out of a the bank, start walking towards his destination. ‘bunty’ follow that person and reaching a lonely place to stopped that person and show at him a pistol and stated that handover the bas to him, and him refused to fire a shot at him which hit on the hand of that person and Bunty snatched the bagy and ran away on his motorcycle. Here, Bunty has committed. 

(a)offence of theft (b)offence of robber 

(c)offence of causing hurt (d)offence of murder 


Section 378 of IPC defines theft. It states that whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking is said to commit theft. 

32.Legal Reasoning - Criminal Law – Medium 

33.Principle A seller of goods cannot transfer better rights than he himself possesses in the goods sold to the buyer.

Facts Komal leaves his watch by mistake on a seat in the park. Sonal finds that watch and immediately sells the same for good price to Monal who without inquiring whether Sonal is its owner or not. Komal later on claims that watch from Monal decide whether Komal can succeed.

(a)Komal cannot succeed as Monal has paid good price of the watch

(b)Komal cannot succeed as Monal is unaware of the fact that Sonal is not its owner

(c)Komal cannot succeed as it was his carelessness and nothing else which enabled Sonal to sell the watch to Monal

(d)Komal cannot succeed as Sonal is merely finder of the watch and therefore, cannot transfer ownership rights thereon to Monal


According to the principle given, a seller of goods cannot transfer better rights than he himself possesses in the goods sold. Here in this case, Komal will not succeed because Sonal is simply a finder of the watch, so she cannot transfer ownership rights to Monal.

33.Legal Reasoning - Law of Torts – Difficult 

34.Principle : An act shall not be a good consideration for a promise unless it is done at the desire of the promisor.

Facts : Shyam wants construct a ‘Barat Ghar’ in his locality. He purchases a piece of land for this purpose. Shyam thereafter, approaches the public to make donations for this noble work. Sixty persons agree to donate Rs. 10000 each. Later on, however, some of the subscriber refuse of make the payment as promised by them. Can Shyam enforce this payment through a court of law?

(a)Yes, Shyam can enforce the subscribers to make payment. 

(b)No, because Shyam did not confer any obligation or liability on the good faith that all the subscribers will make payment. 

(c)No, he cannot because it is the will of subscribers that they make payment or not. 

(d)None of these 


34.Legal Reasoning - Contract Law – Medium 

35.Principle : No legal remedy exists for an injury caused by an act, for which one has consented. 

Fact : Vijay a cricket enthusiast purchases a ticket to watch the one day International Cricket Match between India and Pakistan, organized by the Board of Control for Cricket in India BCCI. As he is absorbed in watching the exploits of Virat Kohli, a ball struck for a six by the latter hits Vijay on his body and injures him. Vijay sues BCCI for reimbursement of the medical bill he paid for treatment of the injury. 

(a)Vijay should be compensated as he purchased the ticket to get entertainment and not to get injured. 

(b)Vijay would lose as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.

(c)BCCI is liable as it did not ensure that the spectators were protected from the risks of such injuries. 

(d)None of the above


(1) Similar to Hall Vs Brook lands Auto Racing Club. 

(2) Vijay would not succeed in this suit as he was spectator to the match. 

Which is obviously with his consent.

35.Legal Reasoning - Law of Torts – Medium

36.Principle :  Right of private defence against assault when there is risk of harm to innocent person - If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault . which reasonable causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk. 

Facts : A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He cannot effectually exercise his right of private defence without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children

(a)A has the right of private defence.

(b)A does not have the right of private defence

(c)A cannot use his right of private defence against mob

(d)A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children.


36.Legal Reasoning - Criminal Law – Medium 

37.Principle : Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as it is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death commits the offence of culpable homicide. 

Facts : ‘A’ knows ‘Z’ to be behind a bush. ‘B’ does not know it. ‘A’, intending to cause of knowing it to be likely to cause ‘Z’s death induces ‘B’ to fire at the bush. ‘B’ fires and kills ‘Z’, then, 

(a)‘A’ does not have intention to cause ‘Z’s death 

(b)‘B’ does not know that ‘A’ has the intention to cause Z’s death. 

(c)‘Z’ was not behind the bush. 

(d)‘A’ has committed the offence of culpable homicide. 


Section 299 of IPC defines culpable homicide, whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing such bodily injury is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. 

37.Legal Reasoning - Criminal Law – Medium 

38.Principle: A person is entitled to use reasonable force for self-defence.

Fact: Gokul was living in a farmhouse with a few family members. One night, a group of robbers broke open the door of the house and there was scuffle between the intruders and the residents. Gokul took out his pistol and fired a shot at one of the intruders. The shot did not hit the target and the robbers ran out of the house and by that time, the neighbours gathered in front of the house. Gokul in a fit of anger came out of the house and fired at fleeing robbers who by that time mingled with the neighbours. The shot injured a neighbour and he filed a suit against Gokul.

(a)Gokul is not liable, since his action was in continuation of self-defence.

(b)Gokul is liable, because he should have realized the possibility of hitting an innocent bystander.

(c)Gokul is not liable since his act was intended against he robbers.

(d)None of the above


As Gokul shot at the fleeing robbers there is no justification of self- defence.

38.Legal Reasoning - Criminal Law – Medium 

39.Principle : "Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account surrounding situation."

Facts : Jeevan and Pavan were neighbours in a residential locality. Pavan started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jeevan who could not put up with any kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.

(a)Pavan is liable, because he should not have started typing class in his house

(b)Pavan is liable, because as a neighbour, he should have realised Jeevan's delicate nature

(c)Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan

(d)None of the above.


Using the standards of a reasonable man, the sound of typing cannot be said as disturbing and hence it is a reasonable one.

39.Legal Reasoning - Law of Torts – Medium 

40.Principles : (1) Negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man would do, breach of which, if it causes damage, makes one liable to the person who suffered loss.

(2)One owes a duty of care to another if a responsible man can foresee that he will be affected by the breach of duty. 

(3)One is not liable if injured party volunteers to take the risk.

Fact: A cricket match is being held in a stadium. X, being unable to afford the ticket price, is viewing the cricket match sitting atop a branch of a nearby tree. When a batsman hits a ball over the boundary, the ball in turn hits A and sustains injury on his spinal chord due to fall from the tree.

(a)The organizers and stadium owners are liable to compensate.

(b)The cricketer who hits the ball is liable along with the organizers, but the stadium owner is not responsible.

(c)Nobody is responsible.


The facts presented in this problem are similar to those of Hall Vs Brook lands Auto Racing Club. In cases where persons expose themselves to risks voluntarily. they cannot later complain of any injury sustained as a consequence of exposing themselves to such risks. [Examples: Going to stadium to witness & match. playing in a play ground etc.]

40.Legal Reasoning - Law of Torts – Medium 

41.Principle A careless person becomes liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others.

Facts : As the bus was leaving the platform, Kashish rushed and boarded the bus keeping the door open. Ashish, who was standing at the edge of the platform, was hit by the door of the moving bus and injured. Ashish claims compensation from Kashish. 

(a)Kashish is liable to Ashish for not having taken care to close the door of the moving bus.

(b)Kashish is not liable to Ashish as it was the duty of the conductor of the bus to close the door.

(c)Kashish is not liable to Ashish, as it was the duty of the latter, to take sufficient care while standing on the platform, as not to expose oneself to such accidental harm.

(d)None of these 


41.Legal Reasoning - Law of Torts – Medium

42.Principle : Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against an immediate harm, and to that end, may use reasonable amount of force. 

Fact : Mr. Kaul was passing by Mrs. Mattoo's house. At that time, Mrs. Matto's dog ran out and bit Mr. Kaul's overcoat. Mr. Kaul turned around and raised the pistol when the dog was running away. Mr. Kaul knew that the dog had attacked so many other people in that locality of Jammu. 

Mrs. Mattoo claims that her dog was of a rare breed and it was worth Rs.5000/- She is planning to bring a legal action against Mr. Kaul for compensation.

(a)She will succeed in getting compensation from Mr. Kaul because he killed the dog, which was not actually attacking him at the time of shooting.

(b)She will not succeed because Mr. Kaul was justified in shooting the dog to protect himself.

(c)She will not succeed because Mr. Kaul took the action to protect himself as well as many other members of public in future.

(d)None of the above


Mrs. Matoo would succeed because Mr. Kaul shot at the dog when it was running away and there was no immediate threat to him. Secondlym, he has used excess force to thwart the animal.

42.Legal Reasoning - Criminal Law – Medium 

43.actus non facit reum, . . . . . . sit rea.

(a) nisi mens(b) rem cantelam(c) ad quem(d) ligitimi non


43.Legal Awareness - Legal Terms – Easy 

44.aequitas est . . . . . .

(a) aequalitas (b) aucli(c) qui vult(d)cum injuria


44.Legal Awareness - Legal Terms – Easy 

45.Donatio non. 

(a) num alia (b)perficitur (c) praesumitur (d)mortis


45.Legal Awareness - Legal Terms – Easy 

46.Assertion (A) Principal is liable for act of agent.

Reason (R) Principal is liable due to principal of vicarious liability.

(a)Both A and R are false

(b)Both A and R are true (R) is correct explanation of (A)

(c)Both A and R are true

(d)A is true But R is false


46.Legal Reasoning - Law of Torts – Medium 

47.Assertion (A) caveat emptor means the buyer beware.

Reason (R) one should rely on the representation made by the seller.

(a)Both A and R are true

(b)Both A and R true and (R) is correct explanation of (A)

(c)R is true A is false

(d)A is true R is false


47.Legal Reasoning - Law of Torts – Medium 

48.Principle In order to be eligible to appear in the semester examination, a student is required to attend, under all circumstances, atleast 70% of the total classes held in that semester as per University rules.

Facts Anand, an economically poor but a very brilliant student of LLB final semester, while going to his university by cycle received some leg injuries in road accident. Consequently Anand could not attend his classes for one week as he was advised rest by his doctor for that period. Due to this absence from the university, Anand failed to have 70% attendance essential to appear in the examination and therefore, he was debarred from appearing in the examination by the university authorities. Anand challenges this decision in the court of law.

(a)Anand will succeed in the court of law as the accident was beyond his control

(b)Anand will definitely get favour of the court on humanitarian ground as he comes from a economically poor family and may not afford to take readmission

(c)Anand will not succeed as he could very easily fulfil eligibility criteria for appearing in the examination by being reasonably regular in the class throughout the semester

(d)Anand will succeed as requirement of 70% attendance may be declared arbitrary and therefore, unreasonable by the court of law


If we go through the principle, then it is clearly mentioned that an attendance of 70% is mandatory to appear in the examination. Anand will not succeed, because he was advised rest only for one week in the whole semester. If he was regular in attending the classes, he could have very easily fulfilled the eligibility criteria for appearing in the examination.

48.Legal Reasoning - Law of Torts – Difficult 

49.Principle : The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made, if an offer has not yet been communicated, even if somebody acts according to the terms of the offer, he cannot be deemed to be acceptor of that offer.

Facts : ‘A’s nephew was missing. ‘A’ sent his servants in search of the boy. When servant had left, ‘A’ by handbill offered to pay Rs. 5000 to anybody discovering to by. One of his servants ‘B’ discovered to by and after coming home claimed the reward. Is ‘B’ liable to claim the reward? 

(a)Yes ‘B’ is liable because he found the son only 3 choice an given. 

(b)No he cannot claim because his is servant of ‘A’ 

(c)No ‘B’ cannot claim reward, because when he found boy, he did not know about the offer and reward. So, there was no acceptance and completion of communication, which are necessary conditions for valid offer. 

(d)None of these 


The Indian Contract Act 1872, essential conditions of a valid offer : 

(i)Expression of willingness to do / abstain from doing to obtain other’s assent : An offer must be made to obtain the assent of the other. When a person says he may by a particular thing for a certain amount, it is not an offer. 

(ii)Intention to contract : There is no provision in the Indian Contract Act requiring that an offer or its acceptance should be made with the intention of creating legal relations, while under English law it is so. However, the courts generally presume intention to enter into legal relation. 

(iii)Express or implied offer : A valid proposal may be made by words i.e., express offer or by conduct i.e., implied offer. 

(iv)Certainty of offer : Terms of the offer must be certain and not vague. 

49.Legal Reasoning - Contract Law – Medium 

50.Principle :  It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge.

Facts :  A, with a guilt intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence.

(a)A, has no intention of abetting a child or a lunatic

(b)an act which is an offence, done by a lunatic is not liable for that offence

(c)A, is not guilty of an offence as an abettor

(d)A, whether the act be committed or not is guilty of abetting an offence.


50.Legal Reasoning - Criminal Law – Medium 

Talk to Our counsellor