21.

Principle: Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by his servant; provided the acts are committed during the course of employment. However. the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by his servant has no connection. whatsoever. with the servants contract of employment.

Facts: ‘D’ is a driver employed by ‘M’, who is the owner of a company. During the lunch time. ‘D’ goes to a close by tea shop to have a cup of tea. There he (‘D’) picks up fight with the tea shop owner (‘T’), which resulted in some damage to his shop. ‘T’ wants to sue ‘M’ for claiming compensation for the damage caused by the fight.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

•  ‘M’ will be liable because ‘D’ is his servant
• Both ‘M’ and ‘D’ will be liable
• ‘M’ will not be liable because the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course of D’s employment
• ‘M’ will not be liable because the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course of D’s employment

 Principle: The Constitution of India guarantees the “right to life”. which means “right to live with human dignity”. The right to life under the Constitution, however, does not include the right to die.

Facts: ‘M’, who is 90, lives all alone as he has no family or children or grandchildren. He suffers from physical and mental distress, as there is no one to look after him. He has little means to foot his medical expenses. Under these circumstances. he approaches the court with a prayer that he should be granted the right to die with dignity because he does not want to be a burden on the society. Further, as it is his life he has a right to put an end to it.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

• The prayer can be granted, as suicide is not an offense in India
• The prayer can be granted. as the right to life under the Constitution includes the right to die
• The prayer can be granted, as a person cannot be forced to enjoy right to life to his detriment, disadvantage and disliking
• The prayer can be granted, as a person cannot be forced to enjoy right to life to his detriment, disadvantage and disliking

Principle: Trespass to land means direct interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land of another person or doing the same through some tangible object(s).

Facts: ‘A’ throws some stones upon his neighbour’s (B’s) premises.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

• ‘A’ has committed trespass
• ‘A’ has not committed trespass, as he has not entered B‟s premises
• ‘A’ has committed nuisance
• ‘A’ has committed nuisance

 Principle: Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. If the interference is „direct’, the wrong is trespass; whereas, if the interference is ‘consequential’, it amounts to nuisance.

Facts: ‘A’ plants a tree on his land. However. he allows its branches to project over the land of ‘B’.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

•  ‘A’ has committed trespass
• ‘A’ has committed nuisance
• ‘A’ has not committed nuisance
• ‘A’ has not committed nuisance

Principle: interference with another’s goods in such a way as to deny the latter’s title to the goods amounts to conversion, and thus it is a civil wrong. It is an act intentionally done inconsistent with the owner’s right, though the doer may not know of, or intend to challenge the property or possession of the true owner.

Facts: ‘R’ went to a cycle-stand to park his bicycle. Seeing the stand fully occupied, he removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange a portion of the stand and make some space for his bicycle.

He parked his bicycle properly, and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to ‘S’. In fact, ‘R’ was in a hurry, and therefore, he could not put back S’s bicycle. Somebody came on the way and took away S’s bicycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the bicycle was not parked inside the stand. ‘S’ filed a suit against ‘R’ for conversion.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

•  ‘R’ could not be held liable for the negligence of the watchman
•  ‘S’ would succeed because R’s act led to the stealing of his bicycle
• ‘S’ would not succeed because ‘R’ did not take away the bicycle himself
• ‘S’ would not succeed because ‘R’ did not take away the bicycle himself

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law’s to do it.

Facts: ‘A’ a police officer, without warrant apprehends ‘Z’ who has committed murder.

• ‘A’ is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement
•  ‘A’ is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement

• 'A’ may be guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint

• 'A’ may be guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint

Principle: When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Facts: Roshan along with two of his friends, Tushar and Tarang proceeded to the house of Darshan in order to avenge an insult made by the brother of Darshan. They opened fire on the members of Darshan’s family. It was found that the shots of Roshan did not hit anyone. but the shots of Tushar and Tarang succeeded in killing Darshan.

• Roshan was not liable for the offence of murder of Darshan. as Roshan’s shots did not hit Darshan
• Only Tushar and Tarang were liable for the offence of murder of Darshan. as their shots hit Darshan
• Roshan along with Tushar and Tarang was liable for the offence of murder of Darshan
• Roshan along with Tushar and Tarang was liable for the offence of murder of Darshan

Principle: No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person.

Facts: ‘A’ a surgeon, in good faith communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock.

•  ‘A’ has committed the offence of causing death of his patient
•  ‘A’ has not committed the offence of causing death of his patient
• ‘A’ has only partially committed the offence of causing death of his patient
• ‘A’ has only partially committed the offence of causing death of his patient

Principle: Whoever. being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant. as such. furnishes. as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false. has committed a punishable offence of furnishing false information.

Facts: Sawant, a landholder. knowing of the commission of a murder within the limits of his estate, willfully misinforms the Magistrate of the district that the death has occurred by accident in consequence of the bite of a snake.

• Sawant is not guilty of the offence of furnishing false information to the Magistrate
• Sawant is guilty of the offence of furnishing false information to the Magistrate
•  Sawant is not legally bound to furnish true information to the Magistrate
•  Sawant is not legally bound to furnish true information to the Magistrate

 Principle: Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be guilty of a negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.

Facts: ‘K’, a person. knowing that he is suffering from Cholera. travels by a train without informing the railway officers of his condition.

•  ‘K’ has committed an unlawful and negligent act. which is likely to spread the infection of Cholera disease dangerous to the life of fellow-passengers
• Railway officers are guilty of an unlawful and negligent act as ‘K’ who is suffering from Cholera disease has travelled by the train
• ‘K’ has not committed an unlawful and negligent act. which is likely to spread the infection of Cholera disease dangerous to the life of fellow-passengers
• ‘K’ has not committed an unlawful and negligent act. which is likely to spread the infection of Cholera disease dangerous to the life of fellow-passengers