Subject

Legal Aptitude

Class

CLAT Class 12

Test Series

Take Zigya Full and Sectional Test Series. Time it out for real assessment and get your results instantly.

Test Yourself

Practice and master your preparation for a specific topic or chapter. Check you scores at the end of the test.
Advertisement

 Multiple Choice QuestionsMultiple Choice Questions

Advertisement

31.

If the pattadars were compulsory required to work in the factory for a minimum number of hours every day, then the Company would have been liable to pay compensation to Aashish Mathew if the latter:

  • Had been assaulted and grievously hurt by his neighbour inside the factory precincts over a property dispute.

  • Had slipped and fractured his arm while trying to commute on a city bus from his home to the factory.

  • Had been injured while commenting on a bus provided by the Company and which he was required by his contract to use every day.

  • Had been injured while commenting on a bus provided by the Company and which he was required by his contract to use every day.


C.

Had been injured while commenting on a bus provided by the Company and which he was required by his contract to use every day.

81 Views

Advertisement
32.

For questions 32 to 36

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.

Facts:

Veena, an old lady of 78 years, 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 died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old 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 reduced its value by half. Lucky’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 Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.       


Has Lucky committed theft?   

  • Yes, Lucky has committed theft of the newspapers and the painting.

  •  No, Lucky has not committed theft because he had Veena’s consent.

  •  Yes, Lucky has committed theft of the painting, but not of the newspapers

  •  Yes, Lucky has committed theft of the painting, but not of the newspapers

90 Views

33.

Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?

  •  No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.

  • Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the painting.

  • No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.

  • No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.

78 Views

34.

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?

  • Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the newspapers and the paintings.

  •  No, he would not be guilty of theft.

  • Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the painting.

  • Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the painting.

70 Views

Advertisement
35.

Is Kamala guilty of theft?

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

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

  •  Yes, Kamala is guilty of theft as she took the painting out of Lucky’s possession without his consent.

  •  Yes, Kamala is guilty of theft as she took the painting out of Lucky’s possession without his consent.

89 Views

36.

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

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

  • Kamala is guilty of criminal damage as she took the painting without Lucky’s consent.

  • Kamala is not guilty of criminal damage as the painting has not been completely destroyed.

  • Kamala is not guilty of criminal damage as the painting has not been completely destroyed.

62 Views

37.

For questions 37-40

Rules:

A. When land is sold, all ‘fixtures’ on the land are also deemed to have been sold.

B. If a moveable thing is attached to the land or any building on the land, then it becomes a ‘fixture’.

Facts:

Khaleeda wants to sell a plot of land she owns in Beghmara, Meghalaya and the sale value decided for the plot includes the fully-furnished palatial six-bedroom house that she has built on it five years ago. She sells it to Gurpreet for sixty lakh rupees. After completing the sale, she removes the expensive Iranian carpet which used to cover the entire wooden floor of one of the bedrooms. The room had very little light and Khaleeda used this light-coloured radiant carpet to negate some of the darkness in the room. Gurpreet, after moving in, realizes this and files a case to recover the carpet from Khaleeda.

As a judge you would decide in favour of

  • Gurpreet because when the price was agreed upon, Khaleeda did not inform her about removing the carpet.

  •  Gurpreet because the carpet was integral to the floor of the bedroom and therefore attached to the buiding that was sold.

  • Khaleeda because a fully-furnished house does not entail the buyer to everything in the house.

  • Khaleeda because a fully-furnished house does not entail the buyer to everything in the house.

81 Views

38.

Assume that in the above fact scenario, Khaleeda no longer wants the carpet. She removes the elaborately carved door to the house after the sale has been concluded and claims that Gurpreet has no claim to the door. The door in question was part of Khaleeda’s ancestral home in Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu for more than 150 years before she had it fitted as the entrance to her Baghmara house. 


 As a judge you would decide in favour of:

  • Khaleeda because while the rest of the building belongs to Khaleeda exclusively, the door is ancestral property and therefore the decision to sell it cannot be Khaleeda’s alone.

     

  • Gurpreet because the door is an integral part of the building as it is attached to it.

     

  •  Khaleeda because the door can be removed from the building and is therefore not attached to it.

  •  Khaleeda because the door can be removed from the building and is therefore not attached to it.

69 Views

Advertisement
39.

Amongst the following options, the most relevant consideration while deciding a case on the basis of the above two principles would be:

  •  Whether the moveable thing was included in the sale agreement.

  • Whether the moveable thing was merely placed on the land or building.

  •  Whether the moveable thing had become an inseparable part of the land or building.

  •  Whether the moveable thing had become an inseparable part of the land or building.

64 Views

40.

Rule C: If a moveable thing is placed on land with the intention that it should become an integral part of the land or any structure on the land it becomes a fixture.

Applying Rules A and C, to the fact situations in questions 37 and 38, as a judge you would decide in favour of:

  •  Khaleeda in both situations 

  •  Gurpreet only in 37

  •  Khaleeda only in 38

  •  Khaleeda only in 38

65 Views

Advertisement