41.

Principle: An interest which is created on a transfer of property and depends upon thefulfillmentof a condition will fail if the fulfillment of the condition is impossible or is forbidden by lawor is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law or isfraudulent or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another or the courtregards it as immoral or opposed to public policy.

Facts: A gives Rs. Ten Lacs to B on condition that B shall marry A’s daughter C. On the date

on which A gave Rs. Ten Lacs to B, C was dead.

•  B’s interest in Rs. Ten Lacs fails because of impossibility
• B’s interest in Rs. Ten Lacs fails because of immorality
• B’s interest in Rs. Ten Lacs fails because of prohibition by law
• B’s interest in Rs. Ten Lacs fails because of prohibition by law

• B has fulfilled the condition
• B has not fulfilled the condition
• B was free to marry anyone without the consent of anybody
• B was free to marry anyone without the consent of anybody

• B’s interest in the farm continues

   
   
• B’s interest in the farm does not continue
   

• B has a fundamental right to go to England or not to go to England and hence the condition was illegal

• B has a fundamental right to go to England or not to go to England and hence the condition was illegal

Principle: Existence of all the alleged facts is relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Facts: A, a permanent resident in a foreign country who never visited India, is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked and prisons are broken open.

• The existence of all the above mentioned alleged facts is relevant

• Only the alleged fact that A is accused of waging war against the Government of India is relevant

• The fact that A was a permanent resident in a foreign country who never visited India is not relevant
• The fact that A was a permanent resident in a foreign country who never visited India is not relevant

• A must prove that B, C, and D have committed the crime
• B, C, and D must prove that they have not committed the crime
• A must prove that B, C, and D were present at the place of crime
• A must prove that B, C, and D were present at the place of crime

• There shall be a conclusive proof that the boy is the legitimate son of X
• There shall be no conclusive proof that the boy is the legitimate son of X
• There shall be no conclusive proof that the boy is the legitimate son of X
• There shall be no conclusive proof that the boy is the legitimate son of X

• The defendant is liable for nuisance
• The defendant is not liable for nuisance
• The defendant is liable under the principle of strict liability
• The defendant is liable under the principle of strict liability

• The agreement is void because it was restraint of marriage
• The agreement is not void because no restraint was imposed upon either of two widows for remarriage
• The restraint was partial so agreement is valid
• The restraint was partial so agreement is valid

Principle: Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to a person or property.
Facts: Mr. Sharman, the Italian captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself near the Kochi coast in such a position that before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B with twenty or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that by changing his course, he must incur risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board, which he may possibly clear. Whether Sharman has committed an offence?

• Sharman has committed no offence because this was done out of necessity
• Sharman can be held responsible for the act of criminal negligence
• Sharman can be held responsible for culpable homicide
• Sharman can be held responsible for culpable homicide

• No writ would lie against the Parliament, as the Court has no authority to direct the Parliament to enact or re-enact a law
• The Court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental right and can direct to make a new law.
• The Court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental right but cannot direct the Parliament to make a new law.
• The Court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental right but cannot direct the Parliament to make a new law.