MCQ 23 May 2025

Daily MCQs for Judiciary Prelims Exams - (23 May 2025)



Question/ Answer
Question1:- The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 provides grounds for the dissolution of marriage based on:
  • A) The principles of the Hanafi school.
  • B) The principles of the Maliki school.
  • C) The principles of the Shafi'i school.
  • D) The principles of the Hanbali school.
Answer is b is correct. The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 provides various grounds for the dissolution of marriage, many of which are based on the principles of the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence. Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer.
Question2:- Who laid down the rule of strict liability in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)?
  • A) Lord Cairns
  • B) Lord Cranworth
  • C) Blackburn, J.
  • D) Lord Colonsay
Answer is c is correct. In the landmark case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), Blackburn, J. established the rule of strict liability. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer.
Question3:- Under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, specific relief may be granted for:
  • A) Enforcing penal laws.
  • B) Enforcing individual civil rights.
  • C) Enforcing criminal laws.
  • D) Enforcing administrative orders.
Answer is b is correct. Section 4 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 specifies that specific relief can be granted only for the purpose of enforcing individual civil rights and not for enforcing penal laws. Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer.
Question4:- Which statement about the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law is incorrect?
  • A) It presumes that a family, because it is joint, possesses joint property.
  • B) It does not recognize the concept of a joint family.
  • C) It allows for the inheritance of property only after the father's death.
  • D) It recognizes a coparcenary between brothers after the father's death.
Answer is a is correct. The Dayabhaga school does not presume that a family possesses joint property merely because it is joint. Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer.
Question5:- In the case of Knightley v. Johns [1982], a police officer was injured while following orders to drive against traffic in a one-way tunnel. The court held that:
  • A) The officer's injury was a direct result of the defendant's original negligent driving.
  • B) The officer's injury was not foreseeable and thus not attributable to the defendant's negligence.
  • C) The officer's injury was due to the natural flow of events following the defendant's negligence.
  • D) The officer's injury was caused by a new intervening act (novus actus interveniens) that broke the chain of causation.
Answer is d is correct. This case illustrates how an intervening act by a third party can relieve the original wrongdoer of liability if it is deemed unforeseeable and independent, thereby breaking the chain of causation. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer.

Syllabus

Test Series

Notification

Brochure

Result