Answer:- According to Winfield and Jolowicz, Negligence is the breach of a legal duty of care by the plaintiff which results in undesired damage to the plaintiff.

In Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co, Negligence was defined as the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do.

Defences available in a suit for negligence

• 1) Contributory negligence by the plaintiff

  Contributory negligence means that when the immediate cause of the damage is the negligence of the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff cannot sue the defendant for damages and the defendant can use it as a defence. This is because the plaintiff in such a case is considered to be the author of his own wrong. It is based on the maxim volenti non fit iniuria which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position which might result in harm, they are not entitled to claim for damages caused by such harm.

  The plaintiff is not entitled to recover from the defendant if it is proved that-

  • 1) The plaintiff by the exercise of ordinary care could have avoided the consequence of the defendant’s negligence.
  • 2) The defendant could not have avoided the consequence of the plaintiff’s negligence by an exercise of ordinary care
  • 3) There has been as much want of reasonable care on the plaintiff’s part as on the defendant’s part and the former cannot sue the latter for the same.

  The burden of proving contributory negligence rests on the defendant in the first instance and in the absence of such evidence; the plaintiff is not bound to prove its non-existence

  In the case of Shelton vs. L & W Railway (1946), while the plaintiff was crossing a railway line, a servant of the railway company who was in charge of crossing shouted a warning to him. Due to the plaintiff being deaf, he was unable to hear the warning and was consequently injured. The court held that this amounted to contributory negligence by him.

• 2) An Act of God

  An Act of God is a direct, violent and sudden act of nature which by any amount of human foresight could have been foreseen and if foreseen could not by any amount of human care and skill have been resisted. Thus, such acts which are caused by the basic forces of nature come under this category. For example: storm, tempest, extraordinary high tide, extraordinary rainfall etc.

  If the cause of injury or death of a person is due to the happening of a natural disaster, then the defendant will not be liable for the same provided that he proves the same in the court of law. This particular defence was talked in the case of Nichols v. Marsland (1876 in which the defendant had a series of artificial lakes on his land. There had been no negligence on the part of the defendant in the construction and maintenance of the artificial lakes. Due to unpredictable heavy rain, some of the reservoirs burst and swept away four country bridges.

  It was held by the court that the defendant could not be said to be liable since the water escaped by the act of God.

• 3) Inevitable Accident

  An inevitable accident can also be called as a defence of negligence and refers to an accident that had no chance of being prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. It means a physically unavoidable accident.

  In the case of Brown v. Kendal (1850)the plaintiff’s and defendant dogs were fighting and their owners attempted to separate them. In an effort to do so, Defendant beat the dogs with a stick and accidentally injured the Plaintiff, severely injuring him in the eye. The Plaintiff brought suit against the Defendant for assault and battery. It was held that the injury of the plaintiff was as a result of an inevitable accident.

Answer:- Answer. The legal maxim "Nemo tenetur accusare se ipsum nisi coram deo" translates to "No man is bound to accuse himself except before God." This ancient principle has deep roots in legal traditions and continues to be relevant in modern jurisprudence. It forms the basis of the right against self-incrimination, which protects individuals from being compelled to testify or provide evidence that could incriminate them.

Many jurists and courts have applied and interpreted this maxim in various legal contexts over time. It underpins the idea that no one should be forced to provide testimony that could lead to their prosecution, safeguarding the principle of fairness in legal proceedings. The maxim aligns with the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

In contemporary times, this principle finds application in legal systems across the world, ensuring that confessions or admissions made under coercion or duress are not admissible. The maxim, by limiting self-incrimination to divine judgment ("coram deo"), implies that only in the face of God, and not before earthly powers, can a person be compelled to confess their wrongdoing. This doctrine is a foundational part of ensuring justice and protecting individual rights within legal frameworks.

Many courts have upheld this principle to ensure that the state bears the burden of proving guilt, preventing the accused from being unfairly pressured into providing evidence against themselves. The maxim plays a crucial role in protecting the dignity and autonomy of individuals in legal matters.

1. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Miranda was apprehended at his house and escorted to a police station, where the complaining witness identified him. He was then questioned for two hours by two police officers, culminating in a signed, written confession. The jury saw the oral and written admissions during the trial. Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape and sentenced to 20-30 years in jail on each charge. Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in getting the confession, according to the Supreme Court of Arizona on appeal.

“The maxim nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare arose from a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons, which had long prevailed in the continental system, and [were] not uncommon even in England until the Stuarts were expelled from the British throne in 1688, and additional barriers for the protection of the people against the exercise of arbitrary power were erected. While prisoner admissions or confessions have always ranked high on the scale of incriminating evidence when made voluntarily and freely, if an accused person is asked to explain his apparent connection to a crime under investigation, the ease with which the questions are asked may take on an inquisitorial tone.”

2. Selvi & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Anr (2010)

The legal question that appeared before the Supreme Court of India in this present case in a batch of criminal appeals related to the involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques, namely narco analysis, polygraph examination, and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test for the purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases.

“The maxim nemo tenetur seipsum accusare arose from a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons that had long prevailed in the continental system, and were not uncommon even in England until the Stuarts were expelled from the British throne in 1688, and additional barriers were erected to protect the people against the exercise of arbitrary power.”

Answer:- The Rule against Perpetuity ensures that property cannot be transferred in a way that makes it inalienable for an indefinite period. This rule is designed to maintain the free circulation of property, which benefits both commerce and the property itself. It is rooted in public policy and equity, ensuring that a person with absolute rights in property also has the right to alienate it. The rule is provided under the Legislative enactment of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA).

Section 14 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) prohibits the creation of future interests in property beyond the lifetime of living individuals and the minority of an unborn beneficiary. The rule prevents property from being locked away indefinitely, limiting the duration for which its alienation can be postponed to the life of a person alive at the time of the transfer, plus the minority (age 18) of an unborn beneficiary.

Essential Elements:

• • Transfer of Property: A valid transfer must occur.
• • Ultimate Beneficiary: The transfer is for an unborn person, who must come into existence during the lifetime of the living person involved.
• • Vesting of Interest: The vesting of interest in favor of the unborn person must not extend beyond their minority, ensuring the property does not remain inalienable indefinitely.

In Soundara Rajan v. C.M. Natarajan (1925), the court clarified that the minority period in such transfers is capped at 18 years unless a court-appointed guardian delays the vesting. This aligns with the principle that the property must eventually vest and become alienable.

The rule against perpetuity does not apply in specific cases, such as:

• • Public Beneficial Transfers: As per Section 18 of the TPA, transfers for public benefits like knowledge, religion, or health are exempt.
• • Corporations: Since corporations have perpetual existence, the rule does not apply to property held by them.
• • Personal Agreements: The rule does not apply to contracts that do not create an interest in the property itself.

The Rule against Perpetuity balances property rights with societal interests by ensuring that property remains transferrable and does not become indefinitely restricted. By limiting the period of inalienability, the rule promotes active circulation of property, benefiting both economic activities and the efficient use of property.

Answer:- The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act is a legal framework enacted in India in 2012 with the primary aim of protecting children from sexual abuse, exploitation, and harassment. It was introduced in response to the growing concern about child sexual abuse in the country and the need for a dedicated law to address these issues.

The POCSO Act represents a significant step in the legal protection of children in India and reflects the government's commitment to addressing child sexual abuse and exploitation. It is a vital tool in the fight against such offenses and aims to ensure the safety and well-being of children.

The act defines various forms of sexual offenses against children, including but not limited to, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and using a child for pornography. It provides a comprehensive and child-specific framework for dealing with such offenses.

The features of POCSO Act, 2012 are:

• • This act defines different forms of offences.
• • This act mandates the establishment of special courts to handle cases related to child sexual offences.
• • Act restricts granting of bail to the accuses.
• • Act prescribes strict penalties for offenders.
• • This act emphasizes child friendly legal procedure and provides use of child psychologists and support personnel to assist child victim during the process.
• • This act protects the identity of child victim.

Hence, this Act is gender-neutral which places the utmost importance on the best interests and welfare of the child throughout all stages to ensure the child's healthy physical, emotional, intellectual, and social development.

Answer:- The dissolution of marriage is a legal process by which a marriage is terminated and the parties are no longer bound to each other as husband and wife. Muslim law recognises several modes of dissolution of marriage, including divorce, annulment, and khula.

Under Muslim law, the husband holds the exclusive right to divorce, and he may exercise this right without providing any justification, simply by expressing his intent to end the marriage through specific words. A Muslim wife, on the other hand, can only divorce her husband if the right to do so is delegated to her by her husband or through mutual consent, such as in cases of Khula or Mubarat.

Before 1939, a Muslim woman had limited grounds for divorce, primarily restricted to accusations of adultery, the husband’s insanity, or his impotence. Divorce in Muslim law can be categorized as follows:

Divorce by the Husband:

Talaq: Talaq traditionally signifies repudiation or rejection, but in Muslim law, it refers to the dissolution of a marriage, either immediately or eventually. It is a general term for all types of divorce, particularly when initiated by the husband.

Under Shia law, talaq must be pronounced orally, without the need for specific words, but it must be declared in the presence of two witnesses. According to Sunni law, any adult and sane man is capable of pronouncing talaq.

Talaq can further be divided in the following ways:

• 1. Talaq-ul-Sunnat: This form of talaq follows the traditions of the Prophet and is further divided into:
  • o Talaaq-i-ahasan: The husband pronounces talaq, followed by a three-month iddat period, which covers three menstrual cycles. If the husband resumes conjugal relations during this period, the divorce is revoked.
  • o Talaaq-i-hasan: The husband pronounces talaq three times over successive menstrual cycles. Each declaration may be revoked by the husband through reconciliation. If no reconciliation occurs after the second pronouncement, the third pronouncement finalizes the divorce.
• 2. Talaq-al-Biddat: This is an irrevocable form of divorce, where the pronouncement of talaq becomes effective immediately, leaving no room for reconciliation. It is considered a disapproved mode of divorce.
• 3. Triple Talaq: Previously, a Muslim man could divorce his wife by pronouncing talaq three times in a single sitting. In the landmark case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court declared this practice unconstitutional, ruling that it violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The court's decision was based on principles of constitutional morality, gender equality, and the dignity of women.
• 4. Ila: In Ila, the husband swears an oath not to have sexual relations with his wife for four months. If this period passes without cohabitation, the marriage is irrevocably dissolved. If the husband resumes conjugal relations before the four months are over, the marriage remains intact.
• 5. Zihar: Zihar occurs when a husband compares his wife to a female relative within the prohibited degrees of marriage. This gives the wife the right to withdraw from him until he performs penance. If the husband refuses to expiate, the wife can seek a judicial divorce.

Divorce by the Wife:

• 1. Talaaq-i-Tafweez: This form of divorce, recognized by both Shia and Sunni sects, allows a wife to initiate divorce, but only if her husband delegates this right to her. It is essentially a contract that enables the wife to dissolve the marriage.
• 2. Lian: Lian refers to a situation where a husband falsely accuses his wife of adultery. In such cases, the wife has the right to sue her husband and request a divorce based on these false charges.

Divorce by Mutual Consent:

• 1. Khula: In this form of mutual consent divorce, initiated by the wife, she agrees to return her mahr (a marital obligation paid by the groom) or offer other compensation to her husband in exchange for the divorce.
• 2. Mubarat: Mubarat occurs when both the husband and wife mutually agree to end their marriage. Among Sunnis, once mubarat is agreed upon, all mutual rights and obligations cease. For Shias, the word mubarat must be followed by the term "talaq" pronounced in Arabic unless the parties are incapable of doing so.

Answer:- Section 13 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 defines the term "Negotiable Instrument" which refers to a legal term that encompasses promissory notes, bills of exchange, or cheques that are payable either to order or to bearer. An instrument is considered payable to order when it is expressly made payable to a specific person or when it is expressed to be payable to a particular person. The presence of such an order indicates that the instrument is transferable to others. Importantly, it should not contain words prohibiting transfer or indicating an intention that it shall not be transferable.

An instrument is regarded as payable to bearer when it is expressly made payable to the bearer or when the only or last endorsement on it is an endorsement in blank. In such cases, the instrument can be transferred simply by delivery, and the holder is not required to be a specific named person.

Even if a promissory note, bill of exchange, or cheque is originally expressed to be payable to the order of a specified person but is not restricted to only that person or their order, it is still considered payable to the specified person or their order at their discretion. This flexibility in the instrument's use allows for its negotiability.

The section also allows for the making of a negotiable instrument payable to two or more payees jointly or in the alternative to one of two or to one or some of several payees. This provision provides flexibility in the payment arrangements.

A key feature of negotiable instruments is their transferability. These instruments can circulate in the market, changing hands through endorsements or delivery, and the holder has the right to demand payment from the parties involved.

Answer:- The registration of a partnership is at the discretion of the partners. The Partnership Act does not demand registration as a mandatory process. However it is advisable to do so and a firm can be registered at any time during the subsistence of partnership. According to Section 58 of Partnership Act, 1932 any partner of the firm can apply to the Registrar of the area where the business is located or will be located. The application should include the firm's name, business location, and duration of the partnership, names and addresses of all partners along with their date of joining the firm. This application must be signed and verified by all partners and submitted with the required fee and a copy of the partnership deed.

Once the Registrar confirms that all requirements of Section 58 are met, they will record the firm's details in the Register of Firms and file the application.

In India, registering a partnership firm is not mandatory, and no penalty is imposed for non- registration. However, under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, not registering a firm can lead to certain limitations or disabilities. In contrast, under English law, it is compulsory to register a partnership, and penalties are imposed for non-registration.

Effects of Non-Registration (Section 69)

• 1. No Legal Action by the Firm or Partners: The firm or its partners cannot file a lawsuit in a civil court against a third party.
• 2. Breach of Contract by Third Party: If a third party breaches a contract, the firm cannot sue them unless the person filing the suit is listed as a partner in the Register of Firms.
• 3. No Set-off Claims: Partners cannot claim a set-off (a counterclaim) in any lawsuit brought by a third party if the amount in question exceeds ₹100.
• 4. No Legal Action against Partners: A partner cannot sue other partners or the firm for any disputes. However, there is an exception: after the firm is dissolved, a partner can file a suit to recover their share in the firm’s property.

The non-registration of a firm has some real-life legal consequences for the partners and the firm itself. So it is always advisable to draw up a written partnership deed and register the firm with the Registrar of Firms.

Answer:- Holder in Due Course is defined under Section 9 of the Negotiable instrument Act, 1881. A "holder in due course" refers to any person who, for consideration, becomes the possessor of a promissory note, bill of exchange, or cheque. This individual must meet specific criteria outlined in the section.

The definition applies to various types of negotiable instruments, including:

• 1. Finding the Balance between Individual Rights and State Interests: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita uses a complex method to find the balance between people's rights and the government's duty to keep the peace and safety of everyone. It makes protections for personal freedoms stronger and gives the government the tools it needs to fight major crimes and keep the peace.

• 1. promissory notes, 2. bills of exchange, and 3. cheques

The characteristics of a holder in due course can vary slightly based on the type of instrument.

To qualify as a holder in due course, the instrument should be either payable to bearer or payable to order. If it's payable to bearer, the holder becomes a holder in due course by merely possessing it. If it's payable to order, the holder must either be the payee or an indorsee (a person whose name appears on the back of the instrument).

A holder in due course must acquire the instrument for consideration before the amount mentioned in it becomes payable. This means that the holder must possess the instrument before the payment is due as specified in the instrument.

To qualify as a holder in due course, the person must acquire the instrument without having sufficient cause to believe that any defect existed in the title of the person from whom they derived their title. In simpler terms, the holder must obtain the instrument in good faith, without knowledge of any legal issues or problems related to the instrument's title.

The holder must provide some form of consideration in exchange for the instrument. Consideration can be in the form of money, goods, services, or any other valuable item. It signifies that the holder has a legitimate interest in the instrument.

Being a holder in due course comes with certain legal advantages, such as having a higher degree of protection when enforcing the rights associated with the instrument. A holder in due course is not subject to certain defences that may be raised against a holder who is not in due course.

Answer:- The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which was made during the British era, with a more current criminal justice system.

"Justice for all" is one of its major ideas. This is a concept that tries to balance people's rights with the state's larger goals of keeping the peace.

• 1. Finding the Balance between Individual Rights and State Interests: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita uses a complex method to find the balance between people's rights and the government's duty to keep the peace and safety of everyone. It makes protections for personal freedoms stronger and gives the government the tools it needs to fight major crimes and keep the peace.
  • a. Individual Rights Protection:
    Due Process and a Fair Trial: The BNS stresses protecting the right to a fair trial, which is an important part of criminal law. This is meant to make sure that no one is wrongly accused and that justice is done fairly.
  • Pay Attention to Victims' Rights: The BNS includes measures for victim compensation and faster justice, giving victims' rights and respect the attention they deserve.
  • Reduced Overreach: By making some legal processes easier and getting rid of old laws, the BNS hopes to stop the government from acting in ways that are unfair or excessive and violate people's rights.
  • b. Protecting State Interests: Fighting New Crimes: The BNS has special parts to deal with current risks like terrorism, hacking, and organised crime. These parts give the government the power to take strong action against new types of crime while making sure that the action is legal and fair.
  • Concerns about national security: The Sanhita includes strict rules to protect national security, especially when dealing with crimes like terrorism, rebellion, and organised violence. The law makes it clearer that the state's job is to protect territory and the peace.
  • Misuse of Laws: The BNS gives the government the power to deal with major threats, but it also sets limits to stop people from abusing their power. There are rules in place to make sure that any action taken by the government is focused and legal.
• 2. Combining penalties: The BNS changes the way the prison system works by combining hard penalties with efforts to help people get better. It adds new punishments, like community service and probation, for situations where change is possible, mostly for small crimes. This shows that change is more important than punishment. The BNS also keeps the death penalty and other harsh punishments for the worst crimes. This shows that the state is serious about protecting people from terrorism and violent crime.
• 3. Protections for Vulnerable Groups: The Sanhita gives extra safety to women, children, and groups that are already at a disadvantage. It shows a conscious effort to keep people safe from abuse and trafficking while making sure that everyone has the same access to justice.
• 4. More accountability for the state: The BNS includes rules that make state officials responsible for their actions. This makes sure that police don't abuse their power. In line with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects life and liberty, this includes rights against wrongfully arresting people, torturing them, and detaining them without a warrant.

Therefore, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, tries to find a fine line between protecting people's rights and giving the government the power to enforce laws for everyone's benefit. As India's needs change, it meets them while supporting the rule of law by focussing on fairness for all. When there is a conflict between people's rights and the government's interests, the BNS handles it carefully by making sure that punishments are fair, increasing protections for the process, and dealing with current crime issues.

Answer:- According to Section 5 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a “bill of exchange” is an instrument in writing containing an unconditional order, sign by the maker, directing a certain person to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order or a certain person or to the bearer of the instrument.”

Answer:- The Indian Contract Act, 1872, distinguishes between void contracts and voidable contracts, both of which have important implications in legal agreements.

• Void Contract: A void contract is an agreement that is not enforceable by law from the very beginning. It is considered invalid and has no legal effect. For example, contracts made for illegal purposes or against public policy are void from the outset.
• Voidable Contract: A voidable contract is initially valid and enforceable, but one party has the option to either affirm or void the contract due to certain factors, such as coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation. If the party chooses to void it, the contract becomes invalid; otherwise, it remains binding.

Legal Enforceability:

• Void Contract: It is unenforceable from the start, and no legal remedy can be sought for its breach.
• Voidable Contract: It is enforceable at the discretion of one party. Until the party with the option to void it chooses to do so, the contract remains valid and can be enforced.

Effect on Parties:

• Void Contract: Since the contract is null and void from inception, both parties are released from their obligations.
• Voidable Contract: One party can enforce the contract while the other party can void it, depending on the circumstances that led to the contract being voidable (e.g., misrepresentation).

Causes:

• Void Contract: A contract can be void if it lacks essential elements, such as consideration, lawful object, or free consent. Contracts that involve illegal activities, like drug trafficking, are void.
• Voidable Contract: It can be voided due to issues like coercion, fraud, undue influence, or misrepresentation. For instance, if one party was forced into the agreement, they may void the contract.

Timeframe for Action:

• Void Contract: Since it’s void from the beginning, no timeframe is applicable for taking action because the contract has no legal standing.
• Voidable Contract: The aggrieved party must act within a reasonable time to void the contract. If they delay, they may be seen as having accepted the terms.

Examples:

• Void Contract: A contract between two parties for an illegal act, such as a contract to sell stolen goods, is void.
• Voidable Contract: A contract where one party was coerced into signing can be voided by that party, but if they choose not to, it remains enforceable.

Hence, void and voidable contracts differ fundamentally in their enforceability and the options available to the parties involved. Void contracts are invalid from the outset, providing no legal remedies, while voidable contracts offer flexibility for one party to either enforce or void the contract based on specific circumstances like fraud or coercion. Understanding this distinction is important in ensuring legal clarity in agreements.

Answer:- The Limitation Act of 1963 is a significant law in India that establishes time limits within which legal actions must be initiated. Its main objective is to ensure that claims are filed within a reasonable period, preventing the unfairness associated with outdated claims and ensuring that evidence stays fresh and credible. In essence, the term "limitation' refers to a restriction or a set of rules that imposes specific time constraints

The Limitation Act came into effect on 1st January 1964 and applies to the entire country of India. It consists of 5 parts and 32 sections, and contains 137 Articles that outline the time limits within which civil cases must be filed. The purpose of the Limitation Act is to ensure that legal actions are taken without unnecessary delays, encouraging parties to seek remedies promptly.

The principle behind the Limitation Act is "It Bars Remedy, But Does Not Extinguish Right," meaning that while the Act sets a deadline for taking legal action, it does not take away the underlying right. This idea is supported by the legal maxim “vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt,” which means "the law helps those who are alert to their rights, not those who neglect them."

The goal of the Limitation Act is to bring an end to disputes in the interest of the state, as captured by the phrase “interest republicae ut sit finis lituim.” According to Section 2(j) of the Act, the "period of limitation" refers to the time limit set for filing a suit, appeal, or application, as mentioned in the Schedule of the Act. The "prescribed period" refers to the time calculated according to the rules laid out in the Act.

Objective & Aim of Limitation Act 1963

The Limitation Act of 1963 aims to ensure timely and efficient justice by setting strict deadlines for bringing legal claims. Its main goal is to prevent old claims from being revived and to encourage individuals to address their grievances promptly. By establishing clear time limits for filing suits, appeals, and applications, the Act promotes legal certainty and stability, protecting defendants interests and ensuring that evidence remains fresh and reliable.

The Act also recognizes that delays in filing claims can harm the integrity of legal proceedings and cause hardship to involved parties. It includes provisions for extending limitation periods in certain cases, such as fraud or disability, balancing the need for finality with fairness. Overall, the Act is designed to streamline judicial processes, reduce case backlogs, and improve the efficiency of the legal system.

In State of West Bengal vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipal Corporation (1972) it was held that whether the limitation period for suits against public authorities could be extended. The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for suits against public authorities, as specified under the Limitation Act, is applicable and cannot be extended arbitrarily. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to prescribed time limits for filing suits against government bodies.

In N. Balakrishnan vs M.Krishnamurthy (1998) it was held that the case involved the interpretation of the condonation of delay under the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that delay in filling a petition can be condoned if the applicant shows a reasonable explanation for the delay. This case is significant as it emphasizes the need for courts to consider the reasons for delay sympathetically to ensure that justice is not denied on procedural grounds alone.

Answer:- A contract can be discharged by agreement when both parties mutually consent to terminate or modify their contractual obligations. The Indian Contract Act, 1872, outlines several ways in which a contract can be discharged by agreement between the parties:

Novation (Section 62) allows the substitution of a new contract or party in place of the original one, creating a fresh agreement that respects both parties evolving needs.

Rescission (Section 64) gives the freedom for both sides to mutually end the contract, recognizing that circumstances change and release from obligations can sometimes serve both parties better.

Waiver (Section 65) introduces the idea of one party voluntarily giving up certain rights, acknowledging that not all rights need to be enforced rigidly if a fair compromise is reached.

Alteration (Section 66) permits the modification of contract terms, allowing for adjustments without changing the fundamental character of the agreement, which helps in accommodating changing situations while maintaining the essence of the contract.

Accord and satisfaction (Section 63) provides a path where both sides agree on a different performance for the original obligation, such as settling a debt with a lesser payment, promoting practical solutions in financial matters.

Above all there is one central principle remains same i.e. consideration.

As per Section 2, both parties must give up something valuable in return, ensuring that fairness and balance are maintained.

These provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are designed not just for the sake of legal technicalities but to foster mutual respect, flexibility, and fairness in contractual relationships. Ultimately, these methods ensure that contracts evolve with the needs of the parties involved while maintaining their core values of mutual agreement and good faith

Answer:- There is a special place in the Indian Constitution for the Preamble because it encompasses the fundamental concepts and ideals that the people who drafted the Constitution had in mind for the country. It is essential in interpreting constitutional provisions and comprehending the philosophy that underpins legislation, despite the fact that it is not legally enforceable.

The Preamble's Significance in Context:

In the Preamble, the ideas of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity are outlined. This is called the philosophical foundation. The aspirations of the people are reflected in it, and it serves as the spiritual foundation upon which the Constitution is built. When attempting to interpret constitutional clauses that are obscure, the Supreme Court of India has often referred to the Preamble as a guiding light for interpretation.

The Supreme Court of India concluded in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) that the Preamble is an integral element of the Constitution and contributes to an understanding of its fundamental framework.

The case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

The right to privacy was included into the more general idea of liberty, as was mentioned in the Preamble, in this important case. The idea that the principles of dignity and individual freedom, which are outlined in the Preamble, are fundamental to democracy was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Sabarimala (2018), used the Preamble to uphold equality and non-discrimination as fundamental values. As a result, the court allowed women to enter the temple and emphasized that religious freedom cannot take precedence over constitutional morality.

In recent years, the idea of constitutional morality has gained support, and judges have been turning to the Preamble in order to defend ideals like as equality, justice, and liberty. As a result, every statute or executive action that is in conflict with these fundamental principles has been removed from the books.

India's legal system is still being shaped by the Preamble to this day. It has developed into a dynamic instrument to safeguard constitutional principles, guaranteeing that justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity are not only words but rather lived realities, as a result of contemporary interpretations of the document. This guarantees that the Constitution continues to be a living document, coping with changes in society while maintaining its fundamental principles.

Answer:- Section- 7 of the Transfer of Property Act specifically provides for the persons who are competent to transfer. A person who is legally competent to propose a transfer only can transfer a property.

Meaning of Transfer of Property

Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines the term transfer of property. According to this section, transfer of property means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself and other living persons.

Persons competent to transfer the subject of persons competent to transfer is dealt with under section 7-

“S.7. Every person competent to contract and entitled to transferable property, or authorized to dispose of transferable property not his own, is competent to transfer such property either wholly or in part and either; absolutely or conditionally, in the circumstances, to the extent and in the manner allowed and prescribed by any law for the time being in force.”

Persons competent to Contract as per Contract Act Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines persons who are competent to enter into contracts. It provides "Every person is competent to contract who if of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind, and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject."

There are a few exceptions to this general rule:

• • Minors: While generally minors cannot contract, there are exceptions where minors can acquire property through gifts, inheritance, or other legal means.
• • Persons of unsound mind: While generally persons of unsound mind cannot contract, in certain cases, they may be able to transfer property if they have lucid intervals or if the transfer is for their benefit.
• • Other disqualifications: There may be specific laws or regulations that disqualify certain individuals from transferring property, such as government officials or convicted criminals in certain contexts.

In conclusion, while the general rule is that persons competent to contract are also competent to transfer property, there are specific exceptions and nuances to consider.

Answer:- The passing of property in the case of specific goods under a contract of sale is governed primarily by the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 in India. This Act lays down various rules that determine when the property (ownership) in specific goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer.

Specific goods are defined in Section 2(14) of the Sale of Goods Act as goods that are identified and agreed upon at the time a contract of sale is made. This includes specific items or identifiable goods that are distinct from generic or unascertained goods.

Rules Regulating the Passing of Property

The following rules govern the passing of property in specific goods:

Rule 1: Property Passes at the Time of the Contract

• • General Rule: According to Section 19(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, the property in specific goods passes to the buyer when the parties intend it to pass. This intention can be inferred from the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties, or the circumstances surrounding the transaction.
• • Example: If a buyer agrees to purchase a specific car, ownership passes to the buyer at the time of the contract, provided that there is no condition precedent.

Rule 2: Transfer of Property in Certain Situations

• • When Goods Are in a Deliverable State: As per Section 20, if the goods are in a deliverable state (i.e., ready for delivery), and the buyer has agreed to purchase them, the property passes to the buyer at the time of the contract.
• • Example: If a seller sells a painting that is framed and ready for collection, the property passes to the buyer upon the agreement, assuming there are no further conditions.

Rule 3: Condition Precedent

• • Property Passes When Conditions Are Fulfilled: According to Section 19(2), if the contract states that the property is to pass only upon the fulfilment of certain conditions (such as payment of price or receipt of goods), then property does not pass until those conditions are met.
• • Example: In a sale of a specific machine where the buyer is required to pay the full amount before taking possession, the property will not pass until the payment is made.

Rule 4: Agreement to Sell

• • Agreement to Sell vs. Sale: Under Section 4, an "agreement to sell" is distinct from a "sale." In an agreement to sell, the transfer of property is to take place at a future date or upon the fulfilment of certain conditions. Thus, property does not pass until the conditions of the agreement are met.
• • Example: If a seller agrees to sell a specific car but stipulates that the transfer of ownership will occur upon the buyer securing a loan, the property remains with the seller until the loan is obtained.

Rule 5: Delivery and Possession

• • Delivery of Goods: As per Section 31, delivery of specific goods can affect the passing of property. If the seller delivers the goods to the buyer, the property typically passes unless the contract stipulates otherwise.
• • Example: If a seller delivers a specific set of books to the buyer, ownership of those books’ transfers upon delivery, assuming no conditions are attached.

Rule 6: Risk and Ownership

• • Risk Passes with Property: According to Section 26, unless otherwise agreed, the risk of loss or damage to the goods passes with the property. Thus, once the property passes to the buyer, they bear the risk associated with the goods.
• • Example: If a specific item is sold, and the property has passed to the buyer, any damage to that item after the sale is the buyer's responsibility, regardless of whether they have taken possession.

Rule 7: Unpaid Seller's Rights

• • Section 45 deals with the rights of an unpaid seller, including the right to retain possession of goods and the right to resell the goods under certain conditions if the buyer fails to pay.
• • Example: If a seller sells specific goods but the buyer defaults on payment, the seller may retain possession of the goods until payment is made.

Therefore, the rules regulating the passing of property in specific goods under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, highlights the importance of the intention of the parties, the conditions set forth in the contract, and the physical delivery of goods. Understanding these rules is essential for both buyers and sellers to navigate the complexities of property transfer in the sale of specific goods effectively.

Answer:- The concepts of equitable interest and legal interest are important in property law.

Legal interest is a formal ownership right recognized by law, while equitable interest is a right based on fairness and justice. Legal interests are enforceable in a court of law, while equitable interests are enforceable in a court of equity. Legal interests provide definitive rights, while equitable interests may have limitations. Legal interests can be transferred through formal legal instruments, while equitable interests can be transferred through assignments or informal agreements. Legal interests are strongly protected by law, while equitable interests are protected through equitable doctrines. An example of a legal interest is ownership of property transferred via a deed of sale. An example of an equitable interest is a beneficiary's right in a trust property.

Hence, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 distinguishes between legal and equitable interests in property. Legal interests are formal ownership rights recognized by law, while equitable interests are rights based on fairness and justice. Understanding these concepts is crucial for anyone involved in property transactions.

Answer:- Absolute liability means that someone is responsible for the harm they cause, even if they didn't mean to do it or try to be careless. This is especially true when they're doing something that's dangerous by nature, like working with chemicals or explosives.

According to Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Decree means-

The rationale behind absolute liability is to ensure that those who engage in hazardous activities bear the cost of any harm caused. This principle is based on the idea that when an enterprise profits from a dangerous activity, it should also assume the risk of liability for any accidents that may occur. Additionally, absolute liability can serve as a deterrent to hazardous activities and encourage enterprises to adopt safer practices.

Key Features of Absolute Liability

• • No Fault Required: The defendant's liability is established without the need to prove negligence or fault.
• • Hazardous Activities: The doctrine primarily applies to activities that are inherently dangerous or involve the use of hazardous substances.
• • Strict Liability: Absolute liability is a stricter form of liability than strict liability, which allows for certain defences such as the act of God, the act of a third party, or the plaintiff's consent.
• • Compensation: The defendant is liable to compensate all those affected by the harm, regardless of their individual fault or contribution to the damage.

Evolution of Absolute Liability

Rylands vs. Fletcher (1868): Although this case originally established the principle of strict liability, it laid the groundwork for the development of absolute liability in later cases.

The concept of absolute liability emerged in India in the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, also known as the Oleum gas leak case. In this case, the Supreme Court of India deviated from the traditional strict liability principle, which allowed for certain defences, and established the doctrine of absolute liability. The court reasoned that when an enterprise engages in a hazardous activity for commercial gain, it should be held absolutely liable for any harm caused, regardless of whether it had taken reasonable care to prevent it.

Absolute liability ensures that those who engage in potentially dangerous activities bear the full responsibility for any resulting harm, promoting greater caution and accountability. Absolute liability serves as a crucial mechanism in tort law to protect individuals and communities from the risks associated with inherently dangerous activities. By imposing liability without fault, it ensures that those who engage in such activities are held accountable for any harm that arises, thereby promoting safety and precaution in potentially hazardous undertakings.

Answer:- Decree is judicial determination of rights of parties regarding the matter in controversy involved in a suit. The final determination made by the judge need to conclusively determine the rights of the parties irrespective of the effect such decree has on a suit.

According to Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Decree means-

"The formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final.

It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include-

• (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order or
• (b) any order of dismissal for default"

Explanation – A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit, it may be partly preliminary and partly final.

The following are the essentials of a decree-

• There must be an adjudication
  In a suit whenever the judge pronounces a formal decision regarding the matter in dispute, such judicial determination is known as adjudication. For a decision of a court to be a decree, adjudication made by a judge in court of law is necessary. It can be said that any decision in an administrative proceeding does not amounts to adjudication because the decision is not judicially determined.
• 1. The adjudication must be done in a suit
  Suit has not been defined anywhere under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Suit in general sense would mean a civil proceeding instituted by presentation of plaint. It can be derived from the above mentioned statements that where no civil suit is instituted the adjudication pronounced by the officer in such cases would not amount to a decree. Certain applications instituted are to be treated as suits like proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, the Land Acquisition Act, the Arbitration Act, etc. The decision given under such proceedings are to be treated as decree.
• 2. The adjudication must be done in determining the rights of the parties relating to all or
  any of the matter in dispute The adjudication of a dispute must determine the rights of the parties with respect to all or any matters in dispute in the suit. Rights of the parties include substantive and not only procedural rights. For example- Rights of the parties relating to status, limitation, jurisdiction, frame of suit, accounts etc. The rights in matters of procedure are not included in the category of rights under this section.
• 3. Such determination must be conclusive in nature
  the determination passed by a Court must be final and conclusive in nature. Such decision is a decree which is final and conclusive with respect to the determination of the rights of the parties irrespective of whether the suit has been disposed of by such decision or not. For example:
  • • Summary disposal of appeal under Order XLI.
  • • Decision dismissing a suit for want of evidence or proofs is decrees.
• 4. There must be a formal expression of such adjudication.
  The Court must express its decision formally in accordance with the provisions of law.

Answer:- It is an act which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff of genuine fear of immediate physical harm or offensive contact.

The term "assault" does not necessarily involve physical contact, but rather focuses on the mental or psychological harm caused by the fear of an impending physical attack.

Essentials of Assault

To establish a claim for the tort of assault, the following elements must generally be proven:

• (i) Intentional Act: The defendant must have intentionally performed an act that created a reasonable apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the plaintiff. It means that the defendant must have had the intent to cause the plaintiff to fear an imminent physical attack or offensive action.
• (ii) Apprehension of Harmful or Offensive Contact: The plaintiff must have reasonably apprehended or experienced a genuine fear of immediate physical harm or offensive contact as a result of the defendant's act. The fear must be reasonable and based on the circumstances of the case.

For Example, Person A and Person B are at a crowded party. Person A, with the intent to cause fear or apprehension in Person B, raises their hand and threatens to strike Person B in the face. Person B, reasonably believing that they are about to be physically harmed, experiences fear and distress as a result of Person A's actions. Person A's intentional act of raising their hand and threatening to strike Person B constitutes an assault. Even though there was no actual physical contact, Person B reasonably believed that they were about to be physically harmed based on Person A's conduct. As a result, Person B may have a valid claim for the tort of assault against Person A.

In Stephens v. Myers, The plaintiff was the chairman of a parish meeting. The defendant also sat on the same table and there were six or seven people seated between the plaintiff and defendant. During the meeting some angry discussion took place and the defendant became very vociferous, a motion was made and carried by a large majority that he should be turned out. Upon this, the defendant said he would rather pull the chairman out of the chair, than be turned out of the room, and immediately advanced with his fist clenched towards him; he was thereupon stopped by the churchwarden. The defendant was held liable for the tort of assault.

Answer:- Void marriage in Muslim Law - Due to the following reasons the marriage (Nikah) are deemed void (Batil)

• (a) Consanguinity - In Muslim law, if a person contracts marriage with -
  • (i) His mother or grandmother, how high so-ever;
  • (ii) High daughter or grand daughter, how low-soever;
  • (iii) His sister - full consanguine or
  • (iv) His niece or great niece how low-soever;
  • (v) His aunt or great aunt (it includes aunt from father's side or mother's side as well).
  The marriage is void on the ground of consanguinity.
• (b) Affinity - A Muslim is prohibited from marrying with all such (relative) woman with whom he has relationship of affinity. In case any marriage is done with any of the following relations, it is deemed, in law, as void -
  • (i) Wife's mother or grandmother, how high-soever.
  • (ii) Wife's daughter or grand daughter how low-soever.
  • (iii) Son's wife or son's son's wife, how low-soever.
  A woman can also not marry with her daughter's husband or daughter's daughter's husband. The above categories of marriages are prohibited due to the violation of the rules of affinity.
• In Fatima Bi Ammal v. A.A. Mahommed Mohideen (1971) 2 MLJ 451, it was observed that the law imposes certain prohibitions based on consanguinity and affinity. If a man marries a woman in violation of such prohibition the marriage is void and the offspring is illegitimate. There is Quoranic injunction also against a man having at the same time two wives who are so related to each other by consanguinity, affinity or fosterage that if either of them had been male they could not have lawfully intermarried, as for instance two sisters or aunt and niece.
• (c) Fosterage. - When a child under the age of two years has been suckled by a woman, other than its own mother, the woman becomes the foster mother of the child. It is as much a prohibition in marriage as consanguinity because the act of suckling is regarded as equal to the act of procreation. For example, man is prohibited from marrying his foster-mother, foster- mother's daughter.

  But under Sunni law one can marry -

  • (1) Foster sister's mother or sister's foster mother.
  • (2) Foster-son's sister.
  • (3) Foster brother's sister.
  • (4) Foster brother's mother.
  • (5) Foster sister's foster mother etc.
  The Shias refuse to recognise the above exceptions because they place fosterage and consanguinity on the same footing. Under Shia law, the marriage with any of the foster relations is void without any exception.

Irregular marriages (Fasid)

Certain kinds of marriages in Muslim law are called irregular (Fasid) though their validity is not affected. Irregular marriages exist only in case of Sunni Muslims whereas an irregular marriage, under Shia law, is void marriage. The following marriages are considered as irregular -

• (i) Marriage without witnesses.
• (ii) Marriage with a woman undergoing 'Iddat'.
• (iii) Marriage prohibited by reason of difference of religion.
• (iv) Marriage with two sisters or contrary to the rules of unlawful conjunction.
• (v) A marriage with fifth wife.
• (vi) Marriage done in intoxication.
• (vii) Marriage done with the non 'kitabi' woman.
• (viii) Marriage with the consent of guardian.
• (ix) Marriage of a Muslim woman with a non-Muslim.

Answer:- The literal meaning of Res Ipsa Loquitor is ‘things speak for itself’

It is a legal doctrine often used in negligence cases to establish a presumption of negligence based on the circumstances of an event. In essence, it allows a plaintiff to rely on circumstantial evidence to demonstrate that negligence occurred without necessarily having direct proof of the defendant's actions.

Generally, the burden of proving negligence is upon the plaintiff. But there are certain cases in which the existing circumstances are pointing towards the negligence by the defendant. In such cases the court presumes that the defendant was negligent.

The general rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was negligent. Initial burden of making a prima facie case against defendant is on plaintiff, but once this onus is discharged, it will be for the defendant to prove that the incident was the result of inevitable accident or contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Direct evidence of the negligence, however, is not necessary and the same may be inferred from the circumstances of the case. Though, as a general rule, the plaintiff has to discharge the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defendant, there are, however, certain cases when the plaintiff need not prove that and the inference of negligence is drawn from the facts. There is a presumption of negligence according to the Latin maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' which means the thing speaks for itself. In such a case it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove accident and nothing more. The defendant can, however, avoid his liability by disapproving negligence on his part. Certain things regarding this maxim has to be kept in mind, these include:

• 1. The maxim is not a rule of law. It is a rule of evidence benefiting the plaintiff because the true cause of accident may lie solely within the defendant's knowledge.
• 2. The maxim applies when-
  • (i) the injurious agency was under the management or control of the defendant, and
  • (ii) The accident is such as in the ordinary course of thing, does not happen if those who have the management use proper care.
• 3. The maxim has no application when the accident is capable of two explanations. Also, it does not apply when the facts are sufficiently known.

If a brick falls from a building and injures a passer-by on the highway, or the goods while in the possession of a bailee are lost, or a stone is found in a bun, or a bus going on a road overturns, or death of a person is caused by live broken electric wire in a street, a presumption of negligence is raised.

In Agyakaur v. Pepsu R.T.C., a rickshaw going on the correct side was hit by a bus coming on the wrong side of the road. Held, that the driver of bus was negligent.

In Municipal Corpn.Delhi v. Subhagwati, due to the collapse of the Clock Tower situated opposite to Town Hall in the main bazar of Chandni Chowk, Delhi, a number of persons died. The Clock Tower belonged to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Supreme Court explained the legal position as: "There is a special obligation on the owner of the adjoining premises for the safety of the structures which he keeps beside the highway. If these structures fall into disrepair so as to be of potential danger to the passer by or to be a nuisance, the owner is liable to anyone using the highway that is injured by reason of the disrepair. In such a case, the owner is legally responsible irrespective of whether the danger is caused by patent or latent (hidden) defect."

Answer:- -In essence, it is provided that Mortgagor’s right of redemption would not be defeated by any agreement to the contrary even though Mortgagor has himself agreed to it. The Maxim simply means that a transaction which at one time is a Mortgage could not cease to be so by having any stipulation in the mortgage deed calculated to prevent the right of redemption.

The underlying principle of this maxim was stated by Lord Henleyin the case of Veron vs. Bethell that “This court as a conscience is very jealous of persons taking securities for a loan and converting such securities into purchases and therefore I take it to be an established rule, that a mortgagee can never provide at the time of making the loan for any event or condition on which the equity of redemption shall be discharged and the conveyance made absolute and there is a great reason and justice in this rule for necessitous men or not will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose upon them.”

Thus, the well-known rule that agreement of the parties overrides the law does not apply to Indian law of right to redemption as in Section 60 of Transfer of Property Act does not contain such words “In the absence of any contract to the contrary” which means that right of redemption cannot be taken away by contract to the contrary entered into by parties to the Mortgage.

Answer:- The rule of best evidence means that it is the duty of the parties to give the best possible evidences in the case. Also it is the duty of the court to extract the best possible evidence from the parties when the court is not satisfies with the evidences given by the parties.

This is one of the rule of best evidence that when any contract has been entered into in writing then the contents of such document has to be proved by documentary evidence only and oral evidence of it cannot be given. The maxim of law is “whatever is recorded as a hard copy must be demonstrated in the form of hard copy only”

As per section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act it has been stated that oral evidence can be given for proving any fact except the contents of the document. For proving the term of the document only documentary evidence can be given.

The manifestation of this rule of best evidence can be clearly seen in section 91 and 92.

As per section 91 of the Act when the terms of the contract, grant or other disposition are reduced into writing then to prove the terms of such document only documentary evidence can be given and oral evidence shall not be admissible.

Also there may be a certain contract grants or other disposition which are reduced into writing or not but they are required by law to be reduced into writing then to prove such transaction only documentary evidence can be given. These are those transaction for which it is mandatory under law that they must be in writing for example rent agreement for more than 11 months, lease deed for an year or more, sale deed for a value above 100 rupees etc. So for proving the terms of these contracts only the documentary evidence can be given and oral evidence shall not be admissible.

Also section 92 of the act is an extension of the rule of best evidence which is given under section 91 of the act.

As per section 92 when the terms of any contract, grant or other disposition has been reduced into writing or are required by law to be in writing then for modifying, altering, adding or subtracting any such term of any such transaction only documentary evidence can be given and oral evidence shall not be admissible.

But in section 92 only six exceptional situations have been given in which it shall be allowed to give the oral evidence of the transactions.

Hence oral evidence cannot be given to prove the contents of the transactions which are duly documented and in such cases oral evidence shall not be admissible.

Answer:- There is divergence of opinion with regard to the nature of Muslim marriage. Some jurists are of the opinion that Muslim marriage is purely a civil contract while others say that it is a religious sacrament in nature. In order to better appreciate the nature of Muslim marriage it would be proper to consider it in its different notions.

Muslim marriage, by some text writers and jurists, is treated as a mere civil contract and not a sacrament. This observation seems to be based on the fact that marriage, under Muslim law, has similar characteristics as a contract. For example-

• • As marriage requires proposal (Ijab) from one party and acceptance (Qubul) from the other so is the contract. Moreover, there can be no marriage without free consent and such consent should not be obtained by means of coercion, fraud or undue influence.
• • Jus as in case of contract, entere into by a guardian, on attaining majority, so can a marriage contract in Muslim law, be set aside by a minor on attaining the age of puberty.
• • The parties to a Muslim marriag may enter into an ante nuptial or post nuptial agreement which is enforceable by law provided it is reasonable and not opposed to the policy of Islam. Same is the case with a contract.
• • The terms of a marriage contract may also be altered within legal limit to suit individual cases.
• • Although discouraged both by the holy Quran and Hadith, yet like any other contract, there is also provision for the breach of marriage contract.

The analogy of marriag contract with contract of sale as pointed out by Justice Mahmood in the leading case of Abdul Kadir v. Salima (1886) emphasised the contractual aspect of Muslim marriage.

Justice Mahmood observed that- “Marriage among Mohammedans is not a sacrament, but purely a civil contract; and though it is solemnized generally with the recitation of certain verses from the Quran, yet the Mohammedan law does not positively prescribe any service peculiar to the occasion. That it is a civil contract is manifest from the various ways and circumstances in and under which marriages are contracted or presumed to have been contracted. And though a civil contract, it is not positively prescribed to be reduced to writing, but the validity and operation of the whole are made to depend upon the declaration or proposal of the one, and the acceptance or consent of the other contracting parties, or of their natural and legal guardian before competent and sufficient witnesses; As also upon the restrictions imposed, and certain of the conditions required to be aided by according to the peculiarity of the case.”

From the above observation Justice Mahmood could not be held to have taken the view that Muslim marriage is nothing but purely a civil contract.

Answer:- Law of Torts is based on English Common Law. It is basically the product of judicial decisions. The word "tort" is derived from the latin term "tortum" which means to twist. Generally, it includes a conduct which is not straight or lawful. Tort belongs to the branch of civil wrongs. The nature of civil wrong is different from the criminal wrongs.

Contract Law is concerned with the rights and obligations arising from agreements between parties. The contract implies any agreement which can be legally enforceable. In contract law, the damages are confined to the losses which the parties incur as a direct consequence of the breach of contract.

The following are the difference between Law of Tort and Contract:-

Answer:- The doctrine of ‘Legitimate Expectation’ is one amongst several tools incorporated by the Court to review administrative Action. The doctrine pertains to the relationship between an individual and a public authority so, according to this doctrine; the public authority can be made accountable in lieu of a ‘legitimate expectation’.

The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation was firstly discussed in the Indian arena in the case of State of Kerala v. K. G. Madhavan Pillai (1988). Herein a sanction was issued for the respondent to open a new aided school and to upgrade the existing schools; however, an order was issued 15 days later to keep the previous sanction in abeyance. The order was challenged by the respondents in lieu of violation of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court rules that the sanction had entitled the respondents with legitimate expectation and the second order violated principles of natural justice.

In another Supreme Court Case, Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society v. Union of India, the principles of procedural fairness were applied. In that case the seniority as per existing list of co-operative housing societies for allotment was altered by a subsequent decision. The previous policy was that the seniority amongst housing societies in regard to allotment of land was to be based on the date of registration of the society with the Registrar. But on 20-1-1990 the policy was changed by reckoning seniority as based upon date of approval of the final list by the Registrar. This altered the existing seniority of societies for allotment of land. The Court held that the societies were entitled to a ‘legitimate expectation’ that the past consistent practice in the matter of allotment will be followed even if there was no right in private law for such allotment. The authority was not entitled to defeat the legitimate expectation of the societies as per previous seniority list without some overriding reason of public policy to justify the change.

The doctrine has undoubtedly gained significance in the Indian Courts, giving locus standi to a person who may or may not have a direct legal right. The doctrine of legitimate expectations very well leads to a procedural right i.e. right to judicial review in India but the substantive aspect of the doctrine can be said to be in a budding stage.

Answer:- Indian Judiciary has adopted a very strict approach towards plea bargaining. A crime is essentially a wrong against the society and the State. Therefore, any compromise between the accused person and the individual victim of the crime, or for that matter the State, should not absolve the accused from criminal liability. However, despite this strict approach the concept of plea bargaining is beneficial for the Indian Legal System for the obvious advantage of handling the massive criminal loads, which has afflicted the legal system for so long. In the present system, people spend a much longer time period in the judicial lock-up than the sentence they would have to serve in the event of a speedy trial. The right to speedy trial is not expressly guaranteed in the Constitution. Speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice and delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice. Keeping all these factors in consideration the concept of plea bargaining was given statutory recognition by Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005.

Sections 265A to 265L of Chapter XXIA of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with the cases in which plea bargaining is to be applied and various guidelines to be followed in such cases.

First of all it is important to note Section 265J which gives precedence to the provisions of this Chapter notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Code and nothing is to constrain the meaning of any provision of this Chapter.

Section 265A lays down the cases in which plea bargaining is applicable. The provisions under this chapter apply to an accused against whom:

•  A report has been forwarded by the officer-in-charge of the police station under Section 173 alleging therein that an offence appears to have been committed by him other than an offence for which the punishment of death, or imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years has been provided under the law for time being in force
•  A Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence on complaint other than an offence for which the punishment of death or imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years, has been provided under the law for time being in force, and after examining the complaint and witness under Section 200, issued the process under Section 204.

However, this does not apply to offenders accused of offences that affect socio-economic condition of the country, or women or children below the age of fourteen years. The offence that affects the socio-economic conditions of the country shall be determined and notified by the Government.

Application Procedure for Plea Bargaining:

Section 265B enables a person accused of the applicable offences to file petition praying for plea bargaining in the court in which the offences are pending for trial. The petition should contain a description of the case including the offences. It shall be accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the petitioner stating that he has understood the nature and extent of the punishment prescribed for the offence.

Section 265C lays down the guidelines for mutually satisfactory disposition which includes

• • In case instituted on a police report, notice shall be issued by the Court to the Public Prosecution, the police officer who has investigated the case, the accused and the victim to participate in the meeting.
• • In case instituted otherwise than on police report notice shall be issued to the accused and the victim to participate in the meeting. This section also provides that the accused or the victim, if so desires, may participate in the meeting accompanied by his pleader.

Section 265D requires that on completion of the process under Section 265C, a report shall be prepared and signed by the Presiding Officer and others who participated in the meeting. If no agreement is reached the Court after recording such fact proceed further in accordance with the provisions of this Code from the stage the application for plea bargaining was filed.

Section 265E states that when the agreement is reached and the disposition signed, the court shall dispose of the case.

According to Section 265F, the court shall deliver its deliver its judgment and Section 265G makes such judgment final and except by way of special leave petitions under Article 136 and writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, there shall be no appeal.

Further, Section 265-I makes the period of detention undergone by the accused to be set-off against the sentence of imprisonment.

In State Of Gujarat vs. Natwar Harchandji Thakor, (2005), the Supreme Court in this case upheld the constitutional validity of plea bargaining. It emphasised on the value of plea bargaining and that each plea of guilt is a part of criminal process, such plea when made should be assessed on case to case basis rather than factually. The court stated that the entire purpose of the law is to give an easy, inexpensive, and quick justice by resolving conflicts, taking into account the dynamic character of law and society.

Answer:- Direct Evidence is acknowledged as the most important evidence required for deciding the matter in issue. Direct evidence directly proves a fact or disapproves of the fact by its virtue. In the case of direct evidence, a particular fact is accepted directly without giving any reason to relate to the fact.

Hearsay evidence is typically understood as a statement made by a person not called as a witness, which is offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in that statement. It is that evidence which comes not from the knowledge of the persons who depose it but through some other person. Section-60 discards hearsay evidence.

The following the differences between Direct and Hearsay Evidence-

Answer:- Expression " Falsus In Uno Falsus in Omnibus" means false in one particular, false in all or false in one thing false in all. This well-known maxim has not received general acceptance in different jurisdiction in India nor has this come to occupy the status of Rule of law. It is merely a Rule of caution.

In Chandru v. State of U.P. 1990, it was held that "It is misconception that a witness has to be believed in toto or disbelieved in toto which in fact a Rule of English law not accepted by the courts in India. Doctrine of `Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is not applicable in this country for the simple reason that in good majority of criminal cases there is admixture of untruth in the statement of witnesse. In such cases the court is bound to indulge in the exercise of minutely examining the evidence of separating the chaff from the grain; once it accepts the essential part of prosecution story.

In Mahendran vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2019), it was held that the entire testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded only because, in certain aspects, part of the statement has not been believed. The general principle of appreciation of evidence is that even if some part of the evidence of witness is found to be false, the entire testimony of the witness cannot be discarded, the Court said. The Court further added that, "The maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution.”

In Gangadhar Behera vs. State of Orissa (2002), it was observed: "Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called 'a mandatory rule of evidence'."

Answer:-

Fact-in-Issue:

• • Definition: The term "fact-in-issue" is defined under section 2(g) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, as follows: "The expression 'fact-in-issue' means and include es any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding necessarily follows."
• • Explanation: A "fact-in-issue" pertains to the central controversy in a legal proceeding, which the court must resolve to determine the outcome of the case. It represents the core facts that are disputed between the parties and are critical for adjudicating the matter at hand. For example, in a murder trial, facts-in-issue may include whether the accused caused the death of the victim, whether the accused intended to cause death, or whether the accused acted under grave and sudden provocation.
• • Characteristics:
  • o The fact must be in dispute between the parties.
  • o The fact must pertain to the determination of a right, liability, or legal responsibility.

Relevant Fact:

• • Definition: The term "relevant fact" is described in section 2(k) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam as: "One fact is said to be relevant to another when one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Adhiniyam relating to the relevancy of facts." Relevant facts are those which, through their connection with other facts, prove or render probable the existence or non-existence of facts-in-issue.
• • Explanation: "Relevant facts" are not themselves in dispute but are connected to the facts-in-issue or other relevant facts in a manner that assists in proving or disproving the facts-in-issue. These facts provide context or support for the facts-in-issue by establishing necessary inferences. For instance, in a case where the defense claims an alibi, evidence of the defendant's location at the time of the alleged offense would be considered relevant to disproving the prosecution's case.
• • Characteristics:
  • o Relevant facts must be connected with facts-in-issue or other relevant facts as specified in Sections 3 to 50 of the Adhiniyam.
  • o They help in proving or disproving facts-in-issue by establishing context or inferential support.

Conclusion:

In summary, "fact-in-issue" refers to the specific facts that are directly contested in a case and are essential for resolving the dispute, while "relevant facts" are those that, though not directly contested, are connected to the facts-in-issue and assist in proving or disproving them by providing necessary contextual or inferential support.

Answer:- Mitakshara is one of the essential schools of Hindu law. It is derived from the commentary of the Smriti written by Yajnvalkya. Except for West Bengal and Assam, Mitakshara School is applicable to the whole part of India. Dayabhaga School is primarily recognized in Assam and West Bengal. It is one of the essential schools of Hindu laws. It is considered to be a summary for the leading smritis.

Distinction between Mitakshara and Dayabhaga School

Answer:- Article 143 of the Constitution of India explains about the conditions in which the President of India can seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court. There are two conditions under which the President may take advisory opinion of the Apex Court are-

• 1) If at any time it appears to the president that question of law or the fact has arisen or likely to arise, that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court.
• 2) If at any time it appears that the question is of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Under Article 143(2), it is mandatory for the Supreme Court to give its opinion to the matter referred to it even if the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on the subject matter referred to it and even it is excluded under the proviso of article 131.

In a landmark case in Re Education bill it was held that the Supreme Court has discretion to give advisory opinion and for good reason and in proper case it can refuse to give its opinion. The court also held that it is the President only who will decide that what question should be referred to the court and if the President has no doubts regarding the provisions then no other third party who have doubt can seek opinion under Art.143.

In Cauvery Tribunal Dispute, 1992, President made a reference to the Supreme Court of India, where the Supreme Court was of the view that the Ordinance passed by the Karnataka Government was in violation of the Constitution because the decision given by the Tribunal was protected under Article 262 of the Constitution of India.

In Re Sea Customs Act, the validity of the Sea Customs Bill was taken into consideration with reference to Article 288 of the Constitution. The advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court was exercised in this case.

Thus, the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 143 empowers the President to make references to Supreme Court on any matters but it cannot be considered as the jurisdiction of Supreme Court. The advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not binding on the President and the references made are also not law and not even binding on the lower courts.

Answer:- Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides:-

• "(1) A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration.
• (2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.
• (3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under Sub- section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made."

So Section 8 says that when a matter is pending before a Court, which is subject to an arbitration agreement, Court shall, upon application by parties to dispute, duly accompanied by original or certified copy of arbitration agreement, refer the parties to arbitration, however, such application is required to be made before submitting first statement upon substance of dispute in court. However, Sub-section (3) of Section 8 clarifies that it would not matter if such an application has been made and the issue is pending before the judicial authority, the parties may commence arbitration proceedings or continue them and an arbitral award may be made therein. This provision lefts the restrictions of lingering the matter in Court by any deceitful tactic and put off arbitration proceedings till then. So even if the judicial authority is seized of the matter, the arbitration proceedings may commence and continue and an arbitral award may be made.

Under the Arbitration Act, 1940, there were four circumstances where the matter could be referred to the Arbitration, however, in the present Act, there is no provision where the party can apply to the Court for reference to the arbitration in respect of matter which is covered in the arbitration agreement. The Court can only refer the matter to the arbitration when the matter is pending before it.

Section 8 of the new Act intends that if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, let them go for arbitration. Thus, Section 8 covers that at first instance the Court should not determine the validity of an arbitration agreement and should encourage arbitration. Although under Section 8(1) the Court cannot adopt on its own motion to avail this provision, the parties have to apply with request, however while considering such request, the Court cannot go into the merits of the dispute.

In the case of Gujarat Composite Limited vs. A Infrastructure Limited & Ors . (2024) SC, The Apex Court dismissed an application to refer to arbitration. The bench observed that the reliefs claimed in the suit fell outside the arbitration clause contained in the agreement executed between the parties. The court reckoned that the issue raised in the civil suit involved multiple transactions, involving different contracting parties and different agreements, all of which, except for one, did not contain an arbitration clause.

While noting that the reliefs claimed in the suit involved subsequent purchasers of the suit property, which were not signatories to the arbitration agreement, the court held that the case did not involve any “doubt” about the non-existence of arbitration agreement in relation to the dispute in question.

In the case of Sharad Gupta & Ors Vs Shri Vinayak Infraland Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2024) Del.HC, the Court in its judgment authored by Justice Jasmeet Singh held, that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 there is no provision for splitting of parties and referring part of the subject matter to arbitration. It held that where a suit encompasses matters outside the arbitration agreement and involves parties not party to the said agreement, Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not apply.

Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996 deals with the "Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement." According to this section, a judicial authority before whom an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration.

Answer:- The term ‘Admission’ as defined under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, means- “A statement whether oral or documentary which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons.” Thus, admission can be generally understood as- a statement of fact which waves or dispenses with the production of evidence by conceding that the fact asserted by the opponent is true.

On the other hand, the term ‘Confession’ has no where been defined in the Evidence Act. It generally means a statement made by a person charged with a crime suggesting an inference as to any facts in issue or as to relevant facts. Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act identifies certain confessions as irrelevant. These include confessions obtained as a result of inducement, threat or promise, particularly when made to a person in authority

Though both ‘Confession’ and ‘Admission’ acknowledge the existence of a fact in issue, yet there are fundamental differences between the two. Admissions and confessions in Evidence Act play significant roles in the legal landscape, particularly in civil and criminal cases. While both admissions and confessions in Evidence Act involve relevant statements, they have distinct characteristics and implication as follows-

• • Confession refers to admitting guilt for a crime or wrongdoing, whereas admission refers to revealing information or acknowledging guilt.
• • Confessions typically involve a sense of responsibility or remorse for the actions in question, making them stronger forms of admission.
• • Confessions are usually voluntary, whereas admissions may be voluntary or involuntary.
• • A confession is usually made by the person who committed the crime, while an admission may be made by anyone with knowledge of the situation.
• • Confessions are self-incriminating statements, whereas admissions can either incriminate or exonerate.

Answer:- If several properties belonging to several persons are mortgaged to secure a debt due to taking of a loan, the law says that each property should contribute towards the debt in proportion to its value. This is called the doctrine of contribution.

A, B and C having common share in a property mortgages it to X for securing loan of Rs 50 lakhs. Here, mortgaged property belongs to 2 or more persons having different shares each of such shares is liable to contribute to the death according to his respective share. This is doctrine of contribution.

Thus, contribution means providing money for a common, under Section 82 of TPA and Section 43 of Indian Contract Act. This is rule based on the principles of Equity, good conscience, justice.

If there is any conflict between marshalling and contribution then marshalling supersedes contribution. In marshalling the subsequent mortgage revive that prior mortgage shall recover his debt out of the property not mortgaged to him, on the other hand, contribution require a property equally liable to pay the debt shall not escape because the creditors has paid out of that other property alone. [Fakir Chand vs. Aziz Ahmad 1939]

Answer:- Section-141 defines “Leading questions”. It lays down that if a question suggests an answer which the person putting the question wishes to receive it is a leading question. A question is leading one when it indicates to the witness the real or supposed fact which the examiner expects and desires to be confirmed by the answer. Whether a question is leading is to be determined by the circumstances in which the question arises. Is the plaintiff your brother? Do you reside at Mumbai? Etc. are examples of leading question.

Section-142 lies down that leading questions should not be put in examination-in-chief or Re- examination if they are objected to. There is an exception to this rule leading questions may be put in examination-in-chief or re- examination by the order of the court in following matters:

• a) As to matters which are introductory
• b) Which are undisputed
• c) Which in the opinion of the court have already been proved

Besides these exceptions under Section- 154, a Court can also allow a party examining his own witness to put leading questions by way of cross-examination.

Section-143 lays down that leading questions may be put in cross- examination. But no misleading question should be asked in cross-examination. The question must relate to matter in fact only.

Example- Suppose, the case of a wife against her husband is that he misbehaves and beats her but the husband denies the allegation. In court the cross-examiner cannot put a question “May I ask if you have left abusing and beating your wife?” Such questions are misleading. Company Ltd. vs. R. (1905).]

Thus, the very purpose of a cross-examining is to test the accuracy, creditability and general reliability of the witness. That is why leading questions are permitted in it.

In Sri L.P. vs. Inspector General of Police, 1954 it was held that if the court makes a general order that no leading questions would be allowed in cross-examination, such an order is illegal and vitiates the trial.

Answer:- Essential elements of Custom-

There are four essential ingredients which are required for formation of customary rule:

• (1)Long Duration
• (2) Uniformity or consistency
• (3) Generality of practice
• (4) Opinio Juris et necessitates.

(i) Evidence of a General Practice accepted as law.- Long duration is an essential element of a custom in Municipal Law. But this is not sufficient for an international custom. Article 38 of the I.C.J. directs the world court to apply international custom as evidence of a general practice accepted as law.

(ii) Uniformity and consistency- The custom should also be uniform and consistent.

(iii) Generality of Practice – For a valid international custom it is necessary that it should be proved by satisfactory evidence that the custom is of a such nature that it has received general consent of the States and no civilized state shall oppose it. [West Rand Central Gold Mining Company Ltd. vs. R. (1905).]

(iv) Opinion juris necessitates. - As pointed out by the International Court of Justice in North Sea Continental Shelf cases, (I.C.J) Rep. 1969, p. 3), ".......... customary practice, even when it is general and consistent, is not customary law unless an opinion juris is present, that is to say, States must recognize the custom as binding upon them as law.

Importance of custom as a source of International Law. - There has been a marked decline in the importance of customs as a source of International law in the modern times. This is mainly due to the fact that the process of development of a new custom is very slow. However, in modern time also the development of new custom is possible and at times customs have developed with accelerated speed. Principle relating to sovereignty over air space and continental shelf are its glaring examples. But in view of the accelerated speed of the changes in International Community, custom has become an inadequate means for bringing about the desired changes and development of international law.

Thus, though the custom has been relegated to second place in importance, it still occupies an important position as a source of law.

Answer:- ‘A’ contracts sale of land to ‘B’ the contract is in writing, stamped, attested but not registered by ‘A’. ‘B’ has paid the half prize or is willing to perform his part of contract and on the basis of that he takes possession of land. Now, ‘A’ sells land to ‘C’ through a registered deed. So, ‘C’ having title wants to reject ‘B’ from possession. Since ‘B’ has no legal title, law may not protect his possession, but equity shall help him from being dispossessed based on the maxim- “Equity looks on that as done which ought to have been done”. This is known as Doctrine of Part performance incorporated in Section- 53A of Transfer of Property Act.

Elements of Doctrine of Part Performance

• 1. Existence of an Agreement: There must be a valid agreement between the parties for the transfer of property, even if it is not in writing or registered.
• 2. Payment of Consideration: The transferee must have paid or agreed to pay the consideration, either fully or in part, as per the terms of the agreement.
• 3. Taking Possession or Making Improvements: The transferee must have taken possession of the property or performed substantial acts of improvement on it based on the agreement

The English equity of Part performance is well illustrated in Maddison v. Alderson, 1883 Lord- Selvourne explained it as “In a suit founded on such part performance the defendant is really charged upon the equities resulting from the acts done in execution of contract and not upon the contract itself. If such equities were excluded, injustice of a kind which the statue cannot be thought to have had in contemplation would follow”

Answer:- Money Bill –

• • Article 110(1) defines that a Money Bill is a Bill which contains only provisions with respect to all or any of the matters provided under Article 110(1)(a) to 110(1)(g).
• • But a Bill is not money Bill by reason only that it provides for-
  • o the imposition of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or
  • o the payment of fees for licence or service rendered, or
  • o imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax by any local authority or body for local purposes.
• • If any question arises whether Bill is a Money Bill or not the decision of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha shall be final. [Article 113(2)].
• • So when a Bill is sent to the Rajya Sabha or presented to the President for assent, a certificate of the Speaker shall be endorsed on it that it is a Money Bill [Article 110(4).

Procedure to pass Money Bill

• • A Money Bill can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha. It cannot be introduced in Rajya Sabha [Article 109(1)].
• • A Money Bill can only be introduced with the recommendation of the President. However, no recommendation of the President is necessary for the moving of an amendment making provision for the reduction or abolition of any tax [Article 117(1), Proviso].
• • After a Money Bill has been passed by the Lok Sabha, it is sent to the Rajya Sabha for its recommendations. The Rajya Sabha must return the Bill to the Lok Sabha within 14 days from the receipt of the Bill with its recommendation.
• • The Lok Sabha may either accept or reject all or any of the recommendations of the Rajya Sabha.
• • If the Lok Sabha accepts any of the recommendations by the Rajya Sabha, the Money Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses with the amendments by the Rajya Sabha and accepted by the Lok Sabha.
• • If the Lok Sabha rejects all the recommendations of the Rajya Sabha, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses in the form in which it was passed by the Lok Sabha.
• • If a Money Bill passed by the Lok Sabha and sent to the Rajya Sabha for its recommendations is not returned to the Lok Sabha within 14 days, the Bill shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses at the expiration of the said (14 days) period in the form in which it was passed by the Lok Sabha.
• • Thus the Rajya Sabha can at most detain a Money Bill for 14 days only [Article 109].Then it will be presented to the President for his assent.
• • When a money bill is presented to the President, he may give or withhold his assent to the bill but cannot return the bill for reconsideration. The President normally gives assent to a money bill as it is introduced in the Parliament with his prior permission.

Answer:- Yes, the party committing bigamy will be guilty under Section-17 because under Section-10 marriage still subsist after getting decree of Judicial Separation. Section 13 1A (i) provides that after the lapses of statutory period of one year from the decree, if the parties are still not willing to continue as husband and wife, either party can seek divorce. Object of Section-10 of Hindu Marriage Act is to preserve marriage bond, as the parties may regret action taken in haste or anger during the period of 1 year. Thus, Judicial Separation either leads to reconciliation or to divorce. It is thus viewed as a lesser evil than a divorce.

After 1976 amendment grounds for both judicial separation and divorce are same courts have now discretionary power to grant Judicial Separation instead of divorce in a petition for divorce founded on the same grounds, even though no such prayer made in the petition. But under Section- 13A of Hindu Marriage Act if a divorce petition is filed on the ground of conversion, renunciation of world or presumption of death, court has no power to pass decree of judicial separation in place of divorce decree.

Answer:- When the condition necessary for the applicability of this section is fulfilled the result is that, transferee is bound by the decision of the court.

For example- In a suit between A & B in a disputed house of B transfers house to C during pendency of suit. If judgment came in favor of B then C would be entitled to the house. If judgment passed against B, C cannot be allowed to take the plea that he had no notice of pending litigation. So, C & B will get nothing.

Thus, it may be noted that under this principle of lis pendens, a person who purchase during pendency of suit, is also bound by the decree made against that party from whom he has purchased.

In Madhukar Nivrutti Jagtap and others v. Smt. Pamilabai Supreme Court observed that the effect of doctrine of Lis Pendens is not to a null all the transfers affected by party to suit but only to render them subsequent to the right of the parties under the decree or order which may be made in that suit.

Thus, the doctrine of Lis Pendens is a legal safeguard to prevent parties from disposing of property in a manner that might undermine the outcome of a pending lawsuit. It is designed to maintain the status quo of the property until the legal dispute is resolved, thereby ensuring fairness and protecting the rights of all parties involved in the litigation.

Answer:- According to Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, agreements are considered a valid contract if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void. This Section lays down the essentials of a valid contract. Thus, consideration is an integral part of the contract.

“An agreement without consideration is void” except-

• ✓ Natural love and affection: As per Section- 25(1) a written and registered contract without consideration, based on natural love and affection by 2 parties related to each other is a valid contract.
• ✓ Voluntary Compensation: A promise to compensate a person wholly or partly for any service done voluntarily or for doing services that are legally compellable is a valid contract even without consideration [Section- 25(2)]
• ✓ Time barred debt: As per Section- 25(3) a written and registered document by the debtor signing himself or his agent with a promise to pay a time barred debt, is a valid contract and does not require any fresh consideration.
• ✓ Agency: According to Section- 185 no consideration is required to create an agency between the principle and agent. The agent can work on behalf of the principal and bind the principal to any contracts done on his behalf.
• ✓ Completed gift: No consideration is required between the donor and the done of any gifts already made. A gift or a donation already given cannot be undone on the grounds that there was no consideration.
• ✓ Remission of a promise: A promise by the promise to the promisor to give a concession in the performance of his obligations is called remission. This remission of a promise can be without consideration.

Thus, it is clear that an agreement without consideration is void except in the conditions mentioned above. There is also a general rule “No consideration no contract” which is clearly expressed from the above summary.

Answer:- The Evolution of Capital Punishment Jurisprudence in India: The application of capital punishment in India has been a subject of intense legal and moral debate, with the Supreme Court playing a pivotal role in shaping its jurisprudence. Central to this jurisprudence is the 'rarest of rare' doctrine, which has become the cornerstone for determining when the death penalty should be imposed. The development involves the following cases:

In Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973) the foundation of India's capital punishment jurisprudence was laid in Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973). In this case, Jagmohan Singh was sentenced to death for murder, and the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the death penalty was constitutionally valid. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, stating that the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not absolute and can be deprived through a procedure established by law. The judgment emphasized that the sentencing judge must consider the facts and circumstances of each case to ensure that the punishment is proportionate to the crime.

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) the turning point in the jurisprudence of capital punishment in India came with the landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). Bachan Singh, convicted of multiple murders, challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty under Article 21. The Supreme Court, while upholding the death penalt's constitutionality, introduced the 'rarest of rare' doctrine, a significant departure from earlier cases. The Court ruled that the death penalty should only be imposed in cases where the alternative punishment of life imprisonment is 'unquestionably foreclosed.' This doctrine required courts to balance aggravating and mitigating factors meticulously, ensuring that the death penalty was reserved for the most heinous and egregious crimes.

In The Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) case further clarified the application of the 'rarest of rare' doctrine. The Supreme Court provided detailed guidelines on what constitutes such cases, emphasizing factors like the manner of commission of the murder, the motive behind the crime, the magnitude of the offense, and the personality of the victim.

In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of delays in executing death sentences and the mental agony caused to death row convicts. The Court commuted the death sentences of several convicts to life imprisonment due to inordinate delays in the execution process, setting a precedent that prolonged delays could be grounds for commuting the sentence. This case highlighted the importance of human dignity and the rights of convicts in the administration of capital punishment.

In The Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2020) case, famously known as the Nirbhaya case, involved the brutal gang rape and murder of a young woman in Delhi. The Supreme Court upheld the death sentences of the convicts, citing the case as a 'rarest of rare' instance.

The evolution of capital punishment jurisprudence in India reflects a careful balancing act between the need for justice and the principles of fairness, human dignity, and the right to life. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of considering both aggravating and mitigating factors, ensuring that the death penalty is imposed only in the most exceptional cases. The 'rarest of rare' doctrine, established in Bachan Singh and refined in subsequent cases, remains the guiding principle for determining when the death penalty should be applied, safeguarding against its arbitrary and capricious use.

Answer:- ‘A’ mortgages property X, Y and Z to ‘B’ for securing a loan of Rs. 50 lakhs later on, ‘A’ mortgages property Z to ‘C’ for securing another loan of Rs. 10 lakh. Here, ‘B’ is termed as prior mortgagee. So, right given to ‘C’ under section 81 of TPA is Rs. 10 lakh which should be satisfied out of sale proceeds of property X and y only and not from Z which has been mortgaged to ‘B’.

However, in case X and Y could be sold for less than Rs. 10 lakhs. Property Z may be sold to complete the amount. In this manner, although ‘C’ is a subsequent mortgagee and his claim is not prior to that of ‘B’ but he has right of marshalling or arranging the securities in his favour as for as possible. According to the right given to the subsequent mortgagee under this section is called Right of marshalling securities.

In Barness v. Rector, W mortgaged two of his properties A and B to X. W then mortgaged property A to Y and property B to Z. Here, the court held that X’s mortgages will be apportioned proportionately between properties A and B and the surplus of A will go to Y and surplus of B will go to Z.

The right under this section provides simply a convince to a subsequent mortgagee but he is not allowed to avail his benefit at the cost in which any other person interested in transaction.

Limitations on the right of Marshalling-

• 1. The mortgagor or debtor must be common; the mortgagees must be 2 or more.
• 2. The right cannot be exercised to the prejudice of another person having claim over the property.
• 3. Subject to any contract to the contrary.

Aldrich v. Cooper, 1803 Lord Eldon under this case foundation of equitable doctrine of marshalling is laid down. The principle stated in this case is “It shall not depend on the will of one creditor to disappoint another. It must be exercised when the mortgagee seeks to realise his security.

Answer:- Furiosi Nulla Voluntas Est, i.e. no culpability can be fastened upon insane persons as they have no free will. The insanity of a person is to be proved in the court. For easing the procedure, the courts have time and again devolved certain tests to arrive at a certain conclusions, for example- Arnold’s, Bowlers test, etc. Mc Naughten’s test is the most successful test in this area.

However, it is only the legal insanity that the court takes into account. Medical insanity barely plays a role in deciding the guilt of the accused. Mere unsoundness of mind does not bring a case within the exception of Section 84. If a fact of a particular case show that the accused knew that he had done something wrong, it did not matter how, though he might be insane from the medical point of view, he could not be exonerated under Section-84.

Legal insanity recognizes only the impairment of the cognitive faculities of the mind at the time of doing the act, i.e. the impairment of rationality, logic, decision-making in the mind of the offender.

Medical insanity holds no ground of defence but legal insanity holds a good ground of defence from criminal liability. Whether a person is previously medically insane, cannot be pleaded as a defence if it is proved that at the time of crime, he was able to apprehend the consequences of his act or that the act done by him was either wrong or contrary to law.

In Queen Empress v. Kader shah it was held that where the accused was suffering from some mental illness after the destruction of his house. He killed the son of his friend kept in his company. In this case, the court clearly brought out the differences between legal insanity and medical insanity and held that the courts are not concerned with ‘’emotions’ and ‘will’ but only the impairment of cognitive faculities to ascertain the guilt of the accused.

The Apex Court in the case of Surendra Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand (AIR 2011 SC 627), have clarified the nuisances surrounding legal insanity. The court emphasises that every person suffering from a mental disease is not automatically exempted from criminal liability. The accused bears the responsibility of proving legal insanity and the onus can be discharged by demonstrating their conduct with reference to their medical condition.

Answer:- Consideration is essential for a valid contract. It is the price for a promise – A Quid Pro Quo. It is the value received as incentive for the promise. A contract without consideration is not binding on the parties.

Pollock took consideration as “the price for which the promise of the other is brought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable.”

Blackstone defined consideration as “the recompense given by the party contracting to the other.”

Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines consideration- “When at the desire of the promisor, the promise or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstained from doing, or promises to do or abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a Consideration for the promise”

The consideration of a contract may be an act or abstinence that has already been done at the desire of the promisor, is in progress or is promised to be done in the future. On this basis, consideration can be categorised as past, present, or future.

Essential features of a valid consideration in accordance with Section-2(d)-

• • It is given ‘at the desire of the promisor”
• • It may move from any person.
• • It can be past, present or future consideration.
• • It must be real and passes value. It must not be illusory.
• • It must be something other than the promisor’s existing obligation.
• • It must be lawful.

In Durga Prsad v. Baldeo it was held that a shop was constructed at the desire of the collector and not at the desire of defendant. So, the action of plaintiff to recover the commission was not accepted.

Thus, consideration plays a very vital role under contract law by assisting us in distinguishing a contract from a mere promise. Consideration is an important element to fulfil the entire requirements of a legitimate contract. The failure of consideration would cause the cancellation of the whole agreement. But the statutory exceptions also cannot be ignored.

Answer:- The condition is void under section 10 T.P.A because ‘C’ may be chosen as a person who may never purchase the property. The restrain on alienation is absolute if it totally takes away or curtails the right of disposal.

Condition Precedent is that condition which is prior to the transfer of property and whether the transfer would take place or not is itself dependent on that condition.

Condition Subsequent is a condition which is required to be fulfilled after the transfer of property has already taken place.

Section 10 states that if the person receiving the property is entirely prohibited from transferring it to someone else due to a condition set at the time of the transfer, that condition becomes void. However, the original transfer from the giver to the receiver remains valid.

In Mohd. Raza v. Abbas Bandi Bibi AIR 1932 condition restraining the transferee from transferring the property to strangers i.e. outside the family of the transferor, the Privy Council held that the condition was mainly a partial restraint which was valid and transferable.

Answer:- Here, in above case- ‘A’ entered the house of ‘B’ for committing theft but during the ‘A’ was committing theft ‘B’ and other members of the family has seen ‘A’ and they attacked ‘A’ with lathis because they know that if they will leave him he can provide harm to their body and property both. So, they started beating him with lathis then ‘A’ being finding his life in danger taken out his revolver fired on ‘B’ causing his death. Although the act done by ‘A’ was done in the right of his private defence but then also he will be liable for punishment because he has exceeded his limit using revolver.

As, it was provided in Section- 300 Exception- 2 culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.

So, in this case ‘A’ is not guilty of murder under Section- 302 but he can be made liable for culpable homicide. Therefore, ‘A’ can be punished under Section- 304 of IPC which provides for the punishment of imprisonment for life, or imprisonment which may extend to 10 tears and also be liable for fine.

Answer:- Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is a cornerstone of the fundamental right to equality. It states: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” Article 14 does not imply absolute equality but rather ensures that all individuals are treated equally before the law and receive equal protection of the laws. Article 14 explicitly prohibits "class legislation." Class Legislation means making of improper discrimination by conferring certain privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from a huge number of people but, Article 14 does not forbid classification. The principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application to all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position. Article 14 permits Reasonable classification.

1. Intelligible Differentia:

• • The classification must be based on an intelligible differentia, meaning that there must be a clear and distinct basis for differentiating between groups or categories. This basis should be apparent and must be capable of being understood and justified.

2. Rational Nexus to the Object:

• • The differentia or basis for classification must have a rational nexus to the objective or purpose of the legislation. This means that the classification must be aimed at achieving a specific and legitimate objective, and there must be a logical connection between the classification and the intended objective.

3. Not Arbitrary:

• • The classification should not be arbitrary or whimsical. It should be made on a reasonable basis and should not result in unjust or discriminatory treatment of individuals or groups. The classification must be founded on a rational and fair assessment of the circumstances.

4. Consistency with the Objective:

• • The classification must be consistent with the legislative or policy objective it seeks to achieve. It should not merely serve to discriminate without a legitimate or rational basis.

Answer:- All Juristic person are not necessarily living persons. An idol is a juristic person capable of holding property but it is not a living person within the meaning of section- 5 of T.P.A.

In Pamatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyuman Kumar Mullick, 1925 it was observed that “A Hindu idol is, according to long, established authority, founded upon the religious customs of the Hindus, and the recognition thereof by Courts of law, a ‘juristic entity’.

Though one cannot transfer property to himself but he can transfer property to himself in some other capacity. Where a person makes any settlement of its property in a trust and appoints himself as a sole trustee.

Here, transferor and transferee are physically the same but a transferor; he has the legal status of settlor whereas as transferee has legal status is that of a trustee.

Answer:- Court issue summon for the appearance of any person in the court if that person’s appearance cannot be compelled in the court by his own. But in some cases court can also issue warrant in lieu of summons in Chapter- VI under Section- 87.

According to Section- A court may, in any case, empowered by this code, to issue a summons for the appearance of any person, issue a warrant for his arrest after recording its reason in writing-

• a) a) If the court has reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons then either before or after the issue of the summons but before the time fixed for his appearance may issue a warrant.
• b)If he fails to appear and the summons is proved to have been duly served and there is no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure

In Indira Devi v. Sarnagat Singh it has been held that if reasons are not recorded for the issue of warrant in lieu of summons then it will be unlawful.

Answer:- The concept of Strict Liability in torts is also referred as “No-Fault Liability”, which means “that liability would exist irrespective of any fault”. This principle was first applied by House of Lords in the case of Ryland v. Fletcher, 1868.

In this case Justice Blackburn laid down that “The person who for his own purpose brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequences for its escape. He cannot escape himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff’s fault, consequences or his major acts or act of God.” Thus, the court held that building such a reservoir was at the risk of defendants and in course of it, if any mishap occurred, defendants would be liable for such escape of materials.

Essentials of Strict Liability-

• a) Dangerous Things- The defendant will be held strictly liable only if a “dangerous” substances escapes from his premises. Things like explosives, toxic gasses, electricity, etc. can be termed as dangerous things.
• b) Escape- It is also essential that such dangerous thing must escape from the premises of the defendant. In the case of Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board where the branches of the poisonous tree were spread from defendant’s land to plaintiffs, it was held that such was escaped.
• c) Non- Natural Use of Land- In Sochacki v. Sas it was held that as fire place was made in the house so it is not non- natural use of land so he was not held liable.

Exceptions to the Strict Liability-

• a) Volenti Non Fit Injuria- where the plaintiff has either explicitly or impliedly consented for the presence of such dangerous thing.
• b) Plaintiff’s own default- The cases where damage is suffered by the plaintiff due to his own fault, the principle of strict liability would not be applied.
• c) Act of God i.e. Vis Major- The principle of strict liability in torts would not be applicable to the cases where damage is caused due to act of God. Such are those which are beyond human power or contemplation and are caused by a superior natural force.
• d) Statutory Authority- If a particular act is done under authorization of a law or statute, for example, an act done by the government companies, such an act cannot be made strictly liable.
• e) Act of third party- A defendant can claim a defence from strict liability in torts where damage is caused to the fault of a stranger or a third party. Such an act is not in control of the defendant.

The principle of strict liability in torts is often criticized because of the existing exceptions which eventually help the defendant to doze off the liability. In the case of Strict Liability, there are some exceptions where the defendant wouldn’t be made liable.

Answer:- A retracted confession is a statement made by an accused person before the trial begins, by which he admits to have committed the offence, but when he repudiates at the trial. Retracted confession can be used against the person making it if it is supported by independent and corroborative evidence. Sections 24, 25, 26 and part of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with irrelevant confession. It is unsafe to base the conviction on a retracted confession, unless it is corroborated by trustworthy evidence.

Evidentiary value of retracted confession-

• a) Status of retracted confessions under the act- The Act makes no distinction whatsoever between a retracted and an unretracted confession both are equally admissible and may be taken into consideration against the accused though it may be that less weight would be attached to a retracted confession.
• b) Particulars of a retracted confession- As the confession is required to be clear, specific and unambiguous, its retraction should also not be ambiguous, vague or imaginary. The person alleging retraction of confession or his earlier inculpatory statement must satisfy the court that he had withdrawn from his statement at the earliest possible time and without any afterthought or advice and must give reasons for the same. The weight attached to retracted confession must depend on the circumstances under which the confession was given, and the circumstances under which it was retracted including the reasons given for retraction.
• c) Importance of corroboration- It is only a matter of prudence and caution which has sanctioned itself into a rule of law that retracted confession cannot be made the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated.
• d) Value of retracted confession, against co-accused and accomplice- Where move persons than one are bring tried jointly for the same offence, a confession made by any one of his co-accused can be taken into consideration by the court not only against the maker but also against the co-accused. A retracted confession can be considered against co-accused but it cannot be the basis for conviction of co-accused.

In Subramania Goundan V.State of Madras it was held that the accused was tired for murder. He made a confession giving full details as was not taken into account. However, his confession was supported by other pieces of evidence.

A confession is the most indispensable part of evidence against a person. However, once it is retracted, whether it takes the person days or months to do so, a doubt is created as to its authencity. The law laid down by the courts in relation to retracted confessions has formed a test to judge its validity. Elements such as fear, threat, punishment that are involved in such a criminal case make it very difficult to completely prove that a statement was made voluntarily, and freely. Therefore, the researcher believes that retracted confessions should be given very less evidentiary value.

Answer:- Nuisance is derived from the Latin term ‘Nocere’ means ‘to harm’ from French word ‘Nuire’ and in English it is ‘Nuisance’. Nuisance is anything which annoys hurts or that which is offensive and is there for a continuous period of time.

Salmond defines it as- The wrong of nuisance consists in causing or allowing without lawful justification the escape of any deleterious thing from his land or from elsewhere into land in possession of the plaintiff. Example- Water, Smoke, Gas, Fumes, Noise, Heat etc.

Pollock defines it as- Nuisance is the wrong done to a man by unlawfully disturbing him in the enjoyment of his property, or in some cases, in the exercise of a common right.

Stephen defines it as- Anything done to hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements of another and not amounting to a trespass.

There are 2 types of Nuisance-

• • Public Nuisance- A public nuisance is an act affecting the public at large.
• • Private Nuisance- Private nuisance is an act affecting some particular individual or individuals as distinguished from the public at large.

In Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal (1928) it was held that if special and particular injury is there then private nuisance is there and damages are awarded.

Essentials of Private Nuisance-

• 1. Plaintiff should have right to use and enjoy the land
• 2. Defendant should be doing unreasonable use of land
• 3. Unreasonable interference or damages. [Robinson v. Kilver (1889)]
• 4. Should be Continuous

Defenses for Nuisance-

• ✓ Prescription- In India you get prescription at the expiration of 20 years. (Section- 26 of the Limitation Act and Section- 15 of the Easement Act)
• ✓ Statutory Authority- When a statute authorises the doing of a particular act or the use of land in a way, all the remedies whether by action or indictment or charge, are taken away. Provided that every necessary reasonable precaution has been taken. Statutory authority may be either absolute or conditional.

There are 3 kinds of remedies available in case of nuisance, these are-

• 1. Injunction- An injunction is a judicial order restraining a person from doing or continuing an act which might be threatening or invading the legal rights of another.
• 2. Damages- The damages may be offered in terms of compensation to the aggrieved party, these could be nominal damages.
• 3. Abatement- Abatement of nuisance means the removal of a nuisance by the party who has suffered, without any legal proceedings. This kind of remedy is not favoured by the law.

Answer:- To restrict a person’s liberty is ultra vires to the Constitution of India and the same has also been made punishable under the Indian Penal Code.

Section- 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines ‘Wrongful confinement’ as- Whosoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said to ‘wrongfully to confine’ that person.

The following are the essential ingredients of the section:

• 1. Wrongful restraint of a person;
• 2. Such restraint must prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits.

Illustration- A causes B to go within a walled space, and locks B. B is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully confines B.

Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code states that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both the classification of this offence is that it is cognizable, Bailable and triable by any Magistrate. Further, it is Compoundable by the person confined with the permission of the court.

The following are the key difference between Admission and Confession-

Types of Wrongful Confinement-

• • Wrongful Confinement for 3 or more days (Section- 343)
• • Wrongful Confinement for 10 or more days (Section- 344)
• • Wrongful Confinement of a person whose liberation writ has been issued (Section- 345)
• • Wrongful Confinement in secret (Section- 346)
• • Wrongful Confinement to extort property, or constrain to illegal act (Section- 347)
• • Wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration of property (Section- 348)

Wrongful Confinement is a circle, therefore it includes all forms of restraints that take place within a defined area, like being prohibited from leaving a room, park, building, house etc. Thus, it involves all sorts of restraints that happen in circumscribed limits.

Answer:- The term ‘Admission’ is defined under section-17 and the term ‘Confession’ has no where been defined in the Indian Evidence Act.

Admission has been defined as a voluntary statement by the accused regarding the existence or truth related to facts in issue. The statements may be oral, written, or contained in electronic form and have to prove an inference relating to a fact in issue or relevant fact.

A confession can be described as a statement from the accused person acknowledging his or her guilt with respect to the crime that has been allege.

Though both ‘confession’ and ‘admission’ acknowledge the existence of a fact in issue, yet there are fundamental differences between the two.

The following are the key difference between Admission and Confession-

Answer:- Right of a mesne mortgagee i.e. summed up in well-known maxim- redeem up, foreclosure down where ‘A’ transfers his property Y to ‘B’ for securing a loan amount of Rs 10 lakh also. ‘A’ mortgages his property Y to ‘C’ for Rs 5 lakhs further ‘A’ mortgages his property Y to D for Rs 3 lakhs.

‘C’ is entitled to redeem ‘B’ (prior mortgagee), ‘D’ is entitled to redeem C and B (prior mortgagees). This is known as redeem up under section 91 of TPA. Here, ‘C’ cannot redeem ‘D’ and B cannot redeem ‘C’ and ‘D’. But, ‘C’ can foreclosure ‘D’ (subsequent) and B can foreclosure against C & D, (who are below than B). This is known as foreclosure down under Section- 94 of TPA.

This rule says that in cases of successive mortgagee, the latter can always redeem the earlier but the earlier cannot redeem the latter except by consent. As regards foreclosure, the rule is that earlier can foreclosure latter but the latter cannot foreclosure the earlier. Earlier the rule was embodied in Section- 75 of TPA, but was repealed by the TPA amending Act no. 20 of 1929.

The repeal however does not effect the rights of mortgages intersay for Section- 91(1) confers on puisne mortgagees, while Section- 94 which has been newly added, provides for the rights of prior mortgagees as against subsequent mortgagees. Thus, sub section (1) of 91 embodies of Section of redeem up while 92 embodies the principle of foreclosure down.

Answer:- Robbery is only a more serious form of offence of theft or extortion. In robbery there is use of violence of death, hurt or wrongful restraint. Violence must be in the course of theft. Thus, it is not necessary that the violence should actually be committed but even an attempt to commit violence is punishable. Robbery is given in Section- 390. According to it- In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

• • When theft is robbery- Theft is “robbery” if in the committing of the theft or in committing theft or in carrying way or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, for that voluntarily causes, or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant hurt or instant death or of instant wrongful restraint.

A holds collar of B and takes B’s money and all accessories which he was wearing without B’s consent and A also slapped B to give accessories as soon as possible. So, here A has committed theft, in order with the theft he has voluntarily caused hurt to B. A, has therefore committed robbery and is liable for punishment.

• • When extortion is robbery- Extortion is ‘robbery’ if the offender at the time of committing the extortion put the person in his presence in fear and commit the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint, to that person or to some other person and induces a person who is putted in fear to deliver up the thing extorted.

A. a lady was going to market. B meets A and showed a knife to her asked her to give all his jewellery. A in the fear of death or instant hurt gave his jewellery to B. Here B extorted the jewellery from A by putting him in the fear of instant death or hurt and at the time of committing extortion in his presence A has, therefore committed robbery.

Answer:- Where the question is as to the existence of any right or custom Section- 13 of Indian Evidence Act, 1873 the following facts are relevant-

• a) Any Transaction
• b) Particular instances

Sectio-13 deals with the proof of existence of any right or custom. Therefore, before discussing the section we have to know as to what is meant by ‘custom’ and ‘right’.

Custom- A ‘custom’ is a particular rule which has existed from the time immoreial and has obtained the force of law in a particular locality. The chief characteristic of a custom is that it cannot extend to the whole realm nor it can embrace the whole of the public.

Kinds of custom-

• 1) Private custom- Custom which governs particular family.
• 2) General custom- These are: Local, Caste or class and Trade, custom and usages.
• 3) Public custom- These are used in the matters of general interest of public.

Rights- Rights under section-13 must be understood as comprehending all rights recognized by law, and therefore including a right of ownership and not being confined to incorporeal rights only. A right may be public or private, corporeal or incorporeal.

This section lays down as to what facts are relevant and may be proved when the question at issue is whether any right or custom exists. The section has 2 parts- Clause (a) and clause (b).

Clause (a) deals with Transaction. Any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created claimed, modified, recognized, asserted, or denied or which was inconsistent with its existence.

Clause (b) deals with Instances. Particular instances, in which the right or custom was claimed, recognized, or exercised or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted, or departed from.

Example- The question is whether ‘A’ has a right to a fishery. A deed conferring the fishery on A’s ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A’s father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A’s father, irreconcilable with the mortgage, particular instances in which A’s father exercised the right, or in which the exercise of the right was stopped by A’s neighbors, are relevant facts.

Answer:- Section 26 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, deals with the important principle of when the risk associated with goods passes from the seller to the buyer.

This principle is crucial in determining who bears the responsibility for any loss or damage to the goods during the course of a sale transaction.

The key aspects of Section 26:

• 1. General Rule of Risk Passing:
  • • The default rule, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, is that the goods remain at the seller's risk until the property in the goods is transferred to the buyer.
  • • Once the property in the goods is transferred to the buyer, whether or not delivery has been made, the goods are at the risk of the buyer.
• 2. Exceptions to the General Rule:
  • • Contrary Agreement: If the parties have agreed otherwise, for example, if they specifically agree that risk passes at a different stage of the transaction.
  • • Delayed Delivery: If the delivery of goods is delayed due to the fault of either the buyer or the seller, the risk remains with the party at fault for any loss that would not have occurred if delivery had been made on time.
  • • Goods in Possession in capacity of a Bailee: If the goods are in the possession of either the seller or the buyer as a bailee (a person holding goods on behalf of another), then the risk may not necessarily pass in accordance with the general rule, and the bailee's obligations and liabilities as such are considered.
• 3. No Impact on Other Duties or Liabilities:
  • • Section 26 clarifies that while it governs the passing of risk, it does not affect any other duties or liabilities that either the seller or the buyer may have in relation to the goods.

Answer:- Section 148 of the CPC states that where any term is fixed or awarded by the Court for the doing of any act provided by CPC, it is the discretionary power of the Court that Court may enlarge such period from time to time, even though the term originally fixed or awarded may have departed. This section confers the power to the civil court in the nature of inherent powers whereby the court can solve the crisis of expiry of time as fixed by the code or as allowed by the code itself. Therefore, enlargement of time cannot be claimed by any party as a matter of right. Civil court has no power to enlarge time under other statue i.e. Limitation Act, 1963.

In Johri singh v. Sukhpal Singh 1989 before exercising the power under Section 148 the court may take into account all the facts and circumstances including the conduct of applicant.

In Smt. Periyakkal v. Smt. Dakshyani 1983 it was held that “of course, time would not be extended ordinarily not for the mere asking. It would be granted in rare cases to prevent and manifest justice”

In simpler terms, if the law sets a deadline for doing something, the court can give you extra time, up to 30 days, if there’s no other rule that says otherwise. However, the court has the freedom to decide whether or not to grant this extra time and the extension can only apply to the originally set time frame. It’s a discretionary power and cannot be claimed as a right.

Answer:- Section 2(6) C.P.C. says `Foreign Judgment' means judgment of foreign court. "Foreign court" means a court situated outside India and not established or continued by the authority of Central Govt.

BINDING NATURE OF FOREIGN JUDGEMENT (Section 13)

Section 13 provides "foreign judgement" shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title.

According to Section 13 of the CPC, a foreign judgment will be inconclusive if it:

• • is pronounced by a court that was not of competent jurisdiction;
• • is not given on the merits of the case;
• • appears to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognize Indian law (where applicable);
• • violates principles of natural justice;
• • is obtained by fraud; or
• • sustains a claim founded on a breach of Indian law.

In terms of Section 44A of the CPC, a foreign judgment/ decree of any of the superior Courts of any reciprocating territory may be executed in India as if it had been passed by a District Court in India.

In M/s International Woollen Mills v. M/s Standard Wools (U.K.), AIR 2001 SC 2134, it was observed section 44-A C.P.C. says where a certified copy of decree of any superior court of any reciprocating territory has been filed in District Court along with certificate from such superior Court stating the extent if any to which the decree had been satisfied or adjudicated, decree may be executed in India as if it had been passed in India. Court observed regarding section 13(b) C.P.C. that it cannot be said that expression 'Foreign Judgment on merit' implies that it must have been passed after contest and after evidence had been let in from both the side. An Ex parte foreign decree and judgment in favour of plaintiff may deem to be judgment given on merit if some evidence is adduced on behalf of plaintiff and judgment is based on consideration of that evidence."

Answer:- Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is an expression of principle of the maxim 'pendente lite nihil innovetur' i.e. pending litigation, nothing new should be introduced.

Section 52 provides that pendente lite, neither party, to the litigation, in which any right to immoveable property is in question, can alienate or otherwise deal with such property so as to affect his opponent. So Section 52 is intended to protect the parties to litigation against alienations by their opponents during the pendency of the suit. It is important to point out here that wherever the T.P. Act is not applicable, the doctrine of 'Lis pendens' which is based on justice, equity and good conscience, principles as contained in Section 52 would still apply.

In Abdul Aziz v. District Judge, AIR 1994 All. 167, it was observed that Section 52 comes into existence from the point of the institution of suit and continues to survive till the satisfaction of the decree.

Essentials of this section

• (i) There must be pendency of a suit or proceeding.
• (ii) The suit or proceeding must be pending in a competent court.
• (iii) The suit or proceeding must not be collusive.
• (iv) A right to immovable property must be directly and specifically in question in that suit or proceedings.
• (v) The property in dispute must be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the litigation.
• (vi) The alienation must affect the rights of the other party.

Effects of the Doctrine:

When a property is transferred pending the suit is not 'Ipso Facto' void, but it is only voidable at the option of the party. It means the party can transfer the property pending the suit, but the transfer will not affect the rights of any party thereto under any decree.

Exceptions:

• (1) Permission of the Court: - If a transfer is made with the permission of the court, then this doctrine cannot be attracted.
• (2) Law of insolvency: - No transfer can be rendered as one fraudulent, if the same is affected under the law of insolvency for the time being in force.
• (3) Effects of fraud:-
  • (a) Whether the fraud is inchoate, that means, a transfer which is made under a sham sale deed, but no property is actually conveyed to the transferee.
  • (b) When the fraud is accomplished or perfected.

Answer:- In Section-41 a police officer may arrest a person without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. According to section-41 a police officer can arrest any person-

• a) Who commits a cognizable offence, in the presence of a police officer.
• b) Person against whom reasonable complaint has been made or information has received or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for term which may be less than 7 years or which may extend to 7 years with or without fine.

If the following conditions are satisfied:-

• i. The police officer has reason to believe that such person has committed the said offence on the basis of information, suspicion and complaint received.
• ii. If the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary-
  • • For proper investigation of offence
  • • To prevent such person for tampering or disappearing any evidence of offence
  • • To prevent such person from making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as that person will not be able to disclose those facts to the court or the police officer.
  • • If such person is not arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured.

And the police officers shall records the reasons in writing while making such arrest.

• a. Against whom crediable information has received and the police officer has a reason to believe that he has committed the cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years with or without fine or with death sentence.
• b. Who has been proclaimed as an offender either under this code or by order of the state government.
• c. The person in whose possession anything is found which may be suspected to be stolen property and it was suspected that the offence has been committed with reference to such thing.
• d. Who obstructs the police officer in performing his duty or who has escaped or attempts to escape from lawful custody.
• e. Person who has been suspected of being a deserter from any of the armed forces of the union.
• f. Against whom reasonable complaint, information has been received or reasonable suspicion exists, having been concerned in any act committed at any place outside of India, which if committed in India would have been punishable as a an offence which he is under any law relating to extradition is liable to detain in custody in India.
• g. Person who has been released as a convict commits the breach of any rule made under crpc.

Person for whose arrest any requisition has been received from another police officer whether written or oral, provided that the requisition specifies that the person to be arrested for the offence and the offence is such that it appears that the person might be lawfully arrested without a warrant by officer who issued the requisition.

Thus, it has been provided that in all the above cases police officer may arrest a person without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant.

Answer:- Doctrine of Caveat Emptor as contained in Section 16 of Sales of Goods Act literally means that `buyer bewar. It implies that it is for the buyer to satisfy himself that the goods which he is purchasing are of the quality which he requires or if he is buying them for a specific purpose, that they are fit for that purpose. If the goods are subsequently found to be unsuitable for purpose, he cannot blame the seller for the same, as there is no implied undertaking by the seller that he shall supply such goods as to suit buyer's purpose.

Rule of "Caveat Emptor" is contained in Section 16 of Act as "Subject to provisions of this Act and of any other law for the time being in force, there is no implied condition as to quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale..." The provision however provides for two implied conditions.

Exceptions to the Rule of Caveat Emptor:
Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 16 of the Act lay down the following exceptions to the rule of "Caveat Emptor" and which are implied conditions in a contract of sale:

• 1. Implied condition as to Quality and Fitness- Section 16(1) says where buyer has expressly or impliedly made it known to seller, the purpose for which goods are required so as to show that buyer is relying on seller's judgement and skill and goods are of description which it is in course of seller's business to supply, then there is an implied condition that goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose.
  In a well-known case of Priest v. Last (1903) 2 K.B. 148, Plaintiff went to the defendant a chemist, and asked for a "Hot water bottle". Defendant sold him an American rubber bottle, plaintiff had purchased the bottle for his wife and while she was using, it burst and injured her. Since the bottle was not fit for being used as `hot water bottl", the particular purpose, for which the buyer had purchased it, Defendant was held liable to pay compensation for the breach of implied condition.
• 2. SALE UNDER TRADE NAME- However proviso to Section 16 (1) of Act provides that in case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose. When a buyer buys an article by specifying a trade name, there is no implied condition of the fitness of the goods for any particular purpose. Since the buyer has specified the goods by mentioning the trade name, it is the duty of the seller to give the same goods to the buyer.
• 3. Implied condition of Merchantable Quality- Section 16 (2) contains second exception to the rule of "Caveat Emptor" and provides that "Where goods are bought by description from seller who deals in goods of that description, there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality. Provided that if the buyer has examined the goods, there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which such examination ought to have revealed."
• 4. Trade Usage- If a seller fails to meet the implied condition or warranty regarding the quality or fitness of goods/products, the principle of caveat emptor no longer holds sway.

Answer:- A contract is an agreement between two or more persons or parties subject to certain terms and conditions for a lawful consideration. The general rule is that only those persons who are parties to a contract may sue and be sued on that contract. Any person other than the parties or persons to a contract is called “Stranger to the contract”.

There are 2 consequences of this rule:-

• 1. A person who is not a party to a contract cannot sue upon it even though the contract is for his benefit and he provided consideration. This rule is known as the Doctrine of Privity of Contract. Privity of contract means a relationship subsisting between the parties who have entered into contractual obligations. It implies a mutuality of will and creates a legal bond.
• 2. A contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person other than the parties to it. This, if there is a contract between ‘A’ and ‘B’, ‘C’ cannot enforce it.

In Tweddle v. Atiknson ‘Doctrine of privity of contract’ has been laid down. It was held that third person to a contract cannot sue even though if he has benefit in the contract.

In Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v. Selfridge & Co Ltd the House of Lords accepted that it was a fundamental principle of English law that only a party to a contract who had provided consideration could sue on it.

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Privity of Contract:

• • A trust or Charge- A person in whose favour a trust or other interest in some specific immovable property has been created may enforce it even though he is not a party to the contract.
• • Marriage settlement, Partition or other Family arrangements- Where an agreement is made in connection with marriage, partition or other family arrangements, and a provision is made for the benefit of a person; he may sue although he is not a party to the arrangement.
• • Acknowledgement or Estoppel- If the promisor by his conduct or acknowledgement or part payment or by estoppel creates privity of contract between himself and the stranger, the stranger can sue.
• • Assignment of a contract- If the benefits under the contract are assigned to the third party, the assignee can sue.
• • Contracts entered into through an agent- In a contract of agency, a person appoints another person to act on his behalf with a 3 rd party. When an agent enters into a contract on behalf of the principal, the principal can enforce the contract.
• • Covenants/ condition running with the land- If there is some right or obligation attached with the land to some authority and the owner of land is subject to fulfil those obligations. If that land is sold & buyer is not aware of those obligations even then he will be subject to those rights & obligations.
• • Holder in due course of a negotiable instrument- A holder who has obtained the negotiable instruments in good faith and for valuable consideration. He may sue the prior parties to the negotiable instrument.

Thus, it can be said that strangers to a contract cannot sue except in the conditions mentioned above. So, if a person is not a party to a contract, he is called a stranger to contract. This is a cardinal principle of law that only a party to a contract can sue.

Answer:- The law relating to ‘necessity’ is enumerated in Section-81 of IPC. Under chapter 4 i.e. general exceptions.

According to Section-81 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 person or property.

Section 81 excuses the doing of an evil so that good may result. It permits the infliction of a lesser evil in order to prevent greater evil. It is intended to give legislative sanction to the principle that where on a sudden and extreme emergency, one or other of the two evils is inevitable, it is lawful so to direct events that the smaller only shall occur.

Thus, to avail the defence under this section it is necessary that the criminal act is done without any evil intention.The law relating to necessity is somewhere based on the ‘Doctrine of self-preservation’.

In R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) In this case it was held that there was no chance of saving life except by killing someone for others. But the accused were made guilty of murder because it was held that there was no such necessity as could justify the accused in killing the boy. Thus, it was proved in this case self-preservation is not an absolute necessity.

Cases in which necessity can be claimed as a ground of excuse are:-

• a) Self-defence and prevention of violence.
• b) Prevention of harm to the accused at the expense of an innocent person.
• c) Choice of evils affecting person other than the accused.

Thus, it is clear that law relating to ‘necessity’ can be claimed as an excuse from criminal liability. It can also be expressed by a common proverb i.e. Quod necessitas non habet legem means that the violation of a law may be excused by necessity.

Answer:- Abetment is an act of encouraging, approving and supporting any person to do any offence or crime. Abetment is defined in Section-107 of the IPC. According to section- A person abets the doing of a thing who instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing or intentionally aids by any illegal act or omission the doing of that thing.

A person who commits the offence of abetment is called Abettor (Section- 108). Thus, therefore it is not necessary that for the offence of abetment, the real offence has been committed. Abetment is in itself is an offence or crime. The punishment for abetment is outlined under Section- 109 of Indian Penal Code. This section states that if someone abets the commission of a crime and that crime is committed in consequence of the abetment, then the abettor shall be punished with the punishment provided for that crime.

Abetment can be committed by various methods i.e.

• a) Instigation- It means provoking any person to do an illegal act or offence. Instigation can be done directly or indirectly i.e. through words, gestures etc. one can instigates the person to do an offence. Thus, through instigation offence of abetment is done.
• b) Conspiracy- When the person abetting conspire two or more persons for the doing of any illegal act or omission it is called abetment of conspiracy. And the act has taken place in the pursuance of conspiracy.
• c) Aiding- It means helping. When the person helps or supports any person or actual offender in the doing of any illegal act or offence for the commission of a crime it is called the abetment of intentional aiding.

Illustration- A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to murder Z and commits that offence in consequence of B’s instigation. B is liable to be punished for the offence with the punishment for murder and as a instigates B to commit the offence, A is also liable for the same punishment.

In Queen v. Mohit 1871 Sati is a historical Hindu practice where if a woman’s husband dies, she shall die too by setting herself on fire so women prepared herself to become Sati in the presence of the accused person. They followed her up to the fire and stood by her stepsons crying Ram Ram one of the accused also admitted that he told the women to say Ram Ram.

It was held that all those persons who follower her to the fire and stood by her and kept chanting Ram Ram would be guilty of abetment as the actively abetted her.

Therefore, it is concluded that abetment is a serious offence because it involves actively facilitating the commission of a crime. So we can say that abetment as an offence enhances the principles of natural justice.

Answer:- Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code embodies the doctrine of Res judicata which is based on the need of giving finality to judicial decisions. It is a Rule of finality of judgment as to the points decided either of facts or of law or fact and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties. It simply enacts that once a matter is finally decided by a competent court; no party can be permitted to reopen it in subsequent litigation.

• The doctrine of res judicata is based on three maxims:-

• 1. nemo debt lis vexari pro uno et eaden causa
  : No man should be vexed twice for same cause.
• 2. ntrest republica ut sit finis litium
  : It is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation.
• 3. Res Judicata pro veritate occipiture
  : A judicial decision must be accepted as correct.

In Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar AIR 1966 SC 1332 it was held that & It is not every matter decided in a former suit that will operate as 'res judicat' in a subsequent suit. To constitute a matter res judicata under section 11 the following conditions must be satisfied:-
Article 13(1) is prospective in nature that is, they operate from the date of the commencement of the Constitution and not retrospectively. It implies that the Existing Laws shall remain valid and will be void only if they are inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights. Article 13(1) had no retrospective effect but only prospective in its operation.

• • The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually or constructively in the former suit.
• • The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim.
• • Such parties must have been litigating under the same title in the former suit.
• • The court which decided the former suit must be a court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised (Explanations and VII of section 11 CPC, 1908 are to be read with this condition).
• • The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in former suit.

Answer:- The doctrine of severability, also known as the separability doctrine or the severability clause, is a legal principle that addresses the issue of whether a contract or a law can remain valid and enforceable even if certain parts of it are found to be invalid or unconstitutional.

Article 13 of the Constitution lays down, under Clause 1 and Clause 2, as follows:-

• (1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution shall be void to the extent of inconsistency with Part III of the Constitution.
• (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III and any law made in contravention of this clause to the extent of the contravention shall be void.

• Effect on existing laws :-
Article 13(1) is prospective in nature that is, they operate from the date of the commencement of the Constitution and not retrospectively. It implies that the Existing Laws shall remain valid and will be void only if they are inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights. Article 13(1) had no retrospective effect but only prospective in its operation.

• Doctrine of Severability
The question then arises that if a provision of a Statute is found to be void, whether the whole of the Statute thereby becomes void or the voidability shall be limited only to the inconsistent part of the Statute? The Court answered that, it is not the whole Act which would be held invalid by being inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution but only such provisions of it which are violative of the fundamental rights, provided that the part which violates the fundamental rights is separable from that. But if the valid portion is so closely mixed up with invalid portion that it cannot be separated without leaving an incomplete or more or less mingled remainder the court will declare the entire Act void. This process is known as doctrine of severability or separability.

• Case laws
The Supreme Court considered this doctrine in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 27 and held that the preventive detention without section 14 was valid as the omission of the Section 14 from the Act will not change the nature and object of the Act and therefore the rest of the Act will remain valid and effective. The doctrine was applied in Union of India v. Rajendra Shah, 2021 SCC Online SC 474, where the 97 th Amendment was quashed in parts and the part which applied to ‘Multi State Cooperative Societies’ remained valid because it was severable from the rest of the Amendment Act.

• Rules for determining Severability
The doctrine of severability has been elaborately considered by the Supreme Court in R.M.D.C. v. Union of India, AIR 1957 S.C. 628, and the following rules regarding the question of severability has been laid down:

• 1. It is the intention of the Legislature, which is the determining factor. The question to be asked is, whether the Legislature would have enacted the valid Part, if it had known that the rest of the Statute was invalid.
• 2. To enquire whether the valid and invalid provisions are so inextricably mixed up that they cannot be separated from one another. If the seemingly valid provisions are so distinct and separate, that after declaring the other set of provisions as invalid, the remaining provisions would remain a complete Code, independent of the rest, then, the distinct and separate provisions, which manifests a complete Code, can become enforceable
• 3. Even if they (the provisions) are distinct and separate, if they all form part of a single scheme, which is intended to be operative as a whole, then, also the invalidity of a part, will result in failure of a whole.

The doctrine of severability creates a legal fiction that permits the courts and tribunals to separate the invalid part of the law from the valid and lawful part. Thus, the courts are able to declare the invalid provisions as ultra vires while retaining the overall statute.

Answer:- The Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been drafted to regulate the criminal system in India. This code tells us about the various types of crime and the punishment for those crimes.

Here in this case ‘A’ dies in possession of some money and ‘B’ the servant of ‘A’ takes the money and used it for his own purpose before the money comes into the possession of any person legally entitles to such possession. ‘B’ as a servant of ‘A’ has a responsibility to be faithful towards his master but here ‘B’ cheats his master and dishonestly uses his money for which he is not entitled to use. It was ‘B’ duty to handover the money of ‘A’ to the person who was legally entitled for his possession. Thus, ‘B’ would be liable for punishment.

In the case of State of Orissa v. Bishnu Charan Muduli[1985 Cr LJ 1573(SC)] , the Supreme Court held that where the Head Constable who had forcefully taken the articles to his custody from a boatman, who had previously recovered those articles from a dead body of a drowned person, keeps those articles in his possession dishonestly. Then, the officer who was holding the articles of a deceased person dishonestly was held guilty of an offence under section 404. Section 404 does not specify as to the nature of property whether it must be movable or immovable. The Courts have unanimously observed that the section shall apply only in cases of the movable property while deciding many cases.

In this case ‘B’ has committed crime under Section-404. Which states dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death. In this section whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use, knowing that property is in possession of deceased person at the time of his death for which he is not legally entitled to such possession.

Thus, here ‘B’ the servant has fulfilled all the elements of Section- 404 by taking the money of ‘A’. So, ‘B’ is liable for punishment under Section- 404 for imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and also be liable for fine.

Answer:- Every kind of claim in a movable property which could be enforced through courts is an actionable claim. Section 3, 130, 131, and 132 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 contains provisions in related to actionable claim.

Section-3 of TPA defines it as-

• a) Unsecured money debt, or
• b) A claim to beneficial interest in movable property not in possession of claimant.

If there is no security of any movable or immovable property, the debt is unsecured. A ‘Debt’ is defined as a sum of money which is payable or will become payable in future by reason of a present obligation. There are different kinds of debt-

• • Existing debt- This is the kind of debt that has already become due, and is payable and enforceable in the present
• • Accuring Debt- If a monetary obligation is due in present, but becomes payable on a future date, then that is accruing debt
• • Conditional Debt- A debt is conditional or contingent if it becomes payable on the fulfillment of a condition or contingency.

Any claim to beneficial interest not in possession of a claimant is also an actionable claim. Here the beneficial interest or right of possession is recognised by the court. It is an intangible movable property. Therefore, actionable claim can be regarded as property and can be transferred.

Illustration- A lends money to B, and B promises to repay the loan with interest. In this case, A has an actionable claim to demand payment of the loan and interest from B.

Some examples of actionable claims are:

• • Claim for arrears of rent.
• • Claim for money due under insurance policy.
• • Claim for return of earnest money.
• • Right to get back the purchase money when the sale is set aside.
• • Right of a partner to sue for an account of the dissolved partnership firm.
• • Right to claim benefit under a contract for the purchase of goods.
• • Right to get the proceeds of a business.

Following are not regarded as actionable claim-

• • Decree is not an actionable claim
• • Right of a person to recover damages for breach of a contract
• • Mesne profit is not actionable claim
• • Right to recover profit from a co-sharer
• • Copyright
• • Debt secured by mortgage or pledge
• • Negotiable Instrument is not actionable claim (Section- 137)

In Doraiswami Mudaliar v. D. Aiyangar 1925 it was held that even through section 130 of TPA does not prescribe any language or wording of transfer from the language used, the intention must be clearly discernible.

Section 136 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 declares certain groups of people who cannot deal in the transfer of actionable claims. This Section bars Judges, legal practitioners or officers of Court from receiving any share or interest in any actionable claim, and hence they cannot be the transferee in transfer of actionable claim.

Therefore, it is concluded that actionable claim is an intangible movable property, and it is transferable. It mainly refers to the types of claims that can be recovered through proceedings in court.

Answer:- Doctrine of Eclipse – Article 13 of the Constitution of India, 1950, provisions under clause 1 and clause 2 as:

Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights

• (1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Pan, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
• (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.

The doctrine involves two issues to be interpreted in the light of Art 13(1) and Art 13(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

• • What will be the status quo of a law which, was valid prior to the commencement of Constitution and, becomes inconsistent with or violates the Constitutional Fundamental Rights after the commencement of the Constitution? What is the scope and definition of the term ‘Void’ shall be under Art 13?
• • Whether the Doctrine also extends to post Constitutional laws? In other words, whether the Doctrine of Eclipse also applies to a Law which is enacted after the commencement of Constitution, if such law violates Fundamental Rights?

We will address each issue one by one in the answer.

• 1. What will be the status quo of a law which, was valid prior to the commencement of Constitution and, becomes inconsistent with or violates the Constitutional Fundamental Rights after such commencement?
  

  The Doctrine of Eclipse is based on the principle that a law which violates fundamental rights is not nullity or void ab initio but becomes; only unenforceable i.e. remains in a moribund condition. It is over-shadowed by the fundamental rights and remains dormant, but it is not dead. Such laws are not wiped out entirely from the statute book. They exist for all post transactions and for the enforcement of the rights acquired and liabilities incurred before the commencement of the Constitution.

  It is only against the citizens that they remain in a dormant or moribund condition but they remain in operation as against non-citizens who are not entitled to fundamental rights.

  • For solving such a problem, Supreme Court formulated the doctrine of eclipse in Bhikhaji v. State of M.P., AIR 1955 S.C. 781
    • In this case the provisions of C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 1948 authorised the State Government to take up the entire motor transport business in the Province to the exclusion of motor transport operators. This provision though valid when enacted, but became void on the commencement of the Constitution in 1950 as they violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. However, in 1951 Clause (6) of Article 19 was amended by the Constitution (1st Amendment Act) so as to authorise the Government to monopolise any business.
    • The Supreme Court held that the effect of the amendment was to remove the shadow and to make the impugned Act free from blemish or infirmity. It became enforceable against citizens as well as non-citizens after the Constitutional impediment was removed. This law was eclipsed for the time being by the fundamental rights. As soon as the eclipse is removed, the law begins to operate from the date of such removal.
• 2. Whether the Doctrine also extends to post Constitutional laws? In other words, whether the Doctrine of Eclipse also applies to a Law which, is enacted after the commencement of Constitution and if such law, violates Fundamental Rights?
• 3. At first The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Deep Chand vs. State of Gujrat (1959) answered this question in negative and said that the scope of the doctrine is only limited to pre Constitutional laws.

Answer:- Contingent Interest: - Section 21 of the Act provisions:

Constitutionalism recognises the need for government with powers but at the same time insist that limitations be placed on those powers. It is a mechanism that provides legitimacy to be a democratic government. The principal of Constitutionalism includes Separation of powers, Responsible and accountable government, popular sovereignty, independent judiciary, individual rights and Rule of law.

"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 even, or if a specified uncertain event shall not happen, such person thereby acquires a contingent interest in the property. Such interest becomes a vested interest in the former case on the happening of the event, in the latter, when the happening of the event becomes impossible."

Exception - Where, under a transfer of property, a person becomes entitled to an interest therein upon attaining a particular age, and the transferor also gives to him absolutely the income to arise from such interest before he reaches that age, or directs the income or so much thereof as may be necessary to be applied for his benefit, such interest is not contingent.

The Section explains that an interest, created on a transfer of property in favour of a person,is contingent when it is expressed to take effect:

• (a) On the happening of a specified uncertain event or,
• (b) If a specified uncertain event shall not happen.

Such interest becomes a vested interest, in the former case (case a) on the happening of the event and, in the latter case (case b) when the happening of the event becomes impossible.

• (1) A property is transferred to D in case, A, B and C shall all die under the age of 18. D has contingent interest in the property until A, B and C all dies under 18.
• (2) An estate is transferred to X for life and after his death to Y if Y shall be living by then, but if X dies, to Z. The interest of Y and Z is contingent in the estate until the event which is to vest it in one or the other has happened.

Answer:- The underline difference between the two concepts is that the constitution ought not merely to confer powers on the various organs of the government but also seek to restrain those powers. Constitutionalism recognises the need for the government but insist upon limitations being placed upon governmental powers. The problem is that the constitution cannot interpret itself and has to be interpreted by the men who hold power. The institutions that were the bulwark of Constitutionalism are either crumbling or have been effectively rendered wear and incapable.

Constitutionalism recognises the need for government with powers but at the same time insist that limitations be placed on those powers. It is a mechanism that provides legitimacy to be a democratic government. The principal of Constitutionalism includes Separation of powers, Responsible and accountable government, popular sovereignty, independent judiciary, individual rights and Rule of law.

Thus, only when the constitution of a country seeks to decentralise power instead of concentrating it at one point and also imposes other restrains and limitations there on does a country have not only constitution but also constitutionalism.

Answer:- In the law of torts, ‘Remoteness of Damage’ is an interesting topic. The general principle of law requires that once damage is caused by wrongful act, liabilities have to be assigned. When a wrongful act is committed damages have to be paid but the question is to what extend the defendant should be held liable. No person can be made liable for endless consequences (Ad Infinitium).

In Haynes vs. Harwood 1935 it was held that the defendant was liable even though the horses had bolted when a child threw a stone on them. Because such mischief anticipated on the part of children. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause.

Test to determine Remoteness-

• 1. Test of Reasonable foresight
• 2. Test of Directness

The Test of Reasonable foresight- According to this test, if the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote.

The Test of Directness- According to this test, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of wrongful act whether they are foreseeable or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.

In Re Polemis and Furness, Wilthy Co. it was landmark case on the test of directness. The Privy Council held the owners of the ship entitled to recover the loss, although such a loss could not have been foreseeably seen by the defendants. It was held that since the fire (and the subsequent destruction of the ship) was a direct consequence of the defendant’s negligence, it was immaterial whether the defendant could have reasonably foreseen it or not.

In Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engg. Co. Ltd. it was held that the test of directness that was upheld in the Re Polemis case was considered to be incorrect and was rejected by the Privy Council 40 years later in this case. Further in this case defendant can only be liable for reasonable foreseeable injury. And it was also popularly known as the Wagon Mound Case.

Therefore it is concluded that, the term remoteness refers to the legal test of causation which is used when determining the types of loss caused by a breach of contract or duty which may be compensated by damages award. Damages which are too remote are not recoverable even if there is a factual link between the breach of contract or duty and the loss.

Answer:- By the term "Asylum" we generally mean the Shelter and active protection which is extended to a political refugee from another State by a State which admits him on his request. According to Starke, asylum comprises two essential components:

• 1. A secure place of residence that exceeds mere temporary refuge and
• 2. Proactive safeguarding by the authorities controlling the asylum territory.

Right to Asylum –

According to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Everyone has a right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. It may, however, be noted that the Declaration simply recognizes the right of asylum, it does not grant right to receive asylum. Thus although everyone has a right to seek asylum yet there is no corresponding duty of States to grant asylum.

Types of Asylum –
Asylum may be classified into two categories –

• (i) Territorial Asylum-Territorial asylum is granted by a State in its own territory and is considered as an attribute of territorial sovereignty of the State which grants asylum.
  Example: India's decision to grant asylum to the Dalai Lama and Tibetan refugees in 1959, following their flight from Tibet due to political persecution, demonstrated India's exercise of territorial sovereignty and its commitment to humanitarian principles.
• (ii) Extra-territorial or diplomatic asylum–A State may also grant asylum in its Embassy in foreign countries or in its public vessels. Extra-territorial or diplomatic asylum may be
  classified into following categories:

In The Haya Dela Torra case (I.C.J. Reports, 1951, p. 71) illustrates the complexities of diplomatic asylum.

Facts: Haya Dela Torra, a Peruvian citizen charged with rebellion, was granted asylum by Colombia in its embassy in Peru. After granting asylum, Ambassador of Columbia requested Peruvian Government to provide facility to enable Columbia to take Haya Dela Torra outside Peru. This request stem from the Bolivian Agreement, 1911 and Pan American Havana Convention on asylum, 1928. Columbia on the other hand defended the Asylum as it was granted for political crime. Peru disputed it and the matter was referred to the International Court of Justice.

Judgment: The Court held that Columbia as the State granting asylum is not competent to qualify the offence (as political) by a unilateral and definitive decision, binding on Peru. However, the Court held that Peru had failed to prove that Haya Dela Torra was accused of an ordinary crime, and not a political crime. The Court added that asylum to Haya Dela Torra had been irregularly granted because three months had passed after the suppression of the military rebellion which clearly showed that the urgency prescribed by Havana Convention as a condition for the granting of asylum had ceased to exist. But since Haya Dela Torra was a political offender the court held that despite the fact that asylum had been irregularly granted, Columbia was not bound to surrender Haya Dela Torra. The International Court of Justice held: to infer an obligation to surrender a person to whom asylum has been irregularly granted would be to disregard both the rule of the extra-legal factors involved in the development of asylum in Latin America and the spirit of Havana Convention.

In summary, while territorial asylum is a direct exercise of a state's sovereignty and can be granted more readily, diplomatic asylum involves intricate legal considerations, and often requires a clear legal basis to avoid conflict with the host state's jurisdiction and international law.

Answer:- The word ‘Muta’ literally means ‘Enjoyment’. Muta marriage is for temporary enjoyment or use but a period is fixed after specifying dower. The specified period may be a day, a month or a year or terms of years. It is generally followed by Ithna Ashari School under the Shia Muslims. It is considered as void under Sunni Law.

Essential of Muta Marriage-

• a) The period of Cohabitation is fixed.
• b) Dower is specified or fixed.
• c) The consent of both the parties must be free consent.
• d) If the term fixed dower is not specified, it amounts to void marriage.
• e) They should not be within prohibited degrees of relationship.

Effects of Muta Marriage-

• a) Children will be treated as legitimate and inherited property of mother only.
• b) In muta, husband has the right to refuse procreation of children.
• c) Wife is not entitled to Maintenance.
• d) If marriage is not consummated iddat is not necessary and wife is entitled to half dower.
• e) If marriage is consummated iddat is of 3 courses and wife is entitled to full dower.
• f) After expiry of term marriage comes to end.
• g) Husband cannot divorce but he can terminate by making gift.

In Shoharat Singh vs. Musammat Jafri Bibi (1914) In this case, it is mentioned that if the period is not specified then it should be considered as a permanent union even if the parties called it as Muta. This type of marriage does not confer any right to the woman on the property of the husband. Dower is a key component of such marriages.

Thus, Muta marriage is for temporary period of time. In India, Muta marriages are not recognised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 or any other legislation. For the betterment of society and to empower women, it is crucial to take a step ahead and discourage such types of marriages.

Answer:- There is no specific or precise definition of Hindu mentioned in any ancient and modern text but from time to time described by the courts in India. The terms Hindu, Hindutum, Hinduism have been described by the honourable courts.

Former C.J. Gajendra Gadgar in Shastri case 1956 SC expressed his views on the term Hinduism, Hindutum saying “that Hindu is not a religion like other religion where ritual are being followed in a set pattern but on the contrary it is practised in a different way by different sects in India. So, it can be considered as a way of life.”

Section-2 of Hindu Marriage Act, states that this act applies to any person who is a Hindu by birth or who has changed his/her religion to either any of its forms such as Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj.

Under those who are category following persons comes under preview of Hindu Marriage Act are-

• ✓ Is a Hindu by religion in any form.
• ✓ Is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion.
• ✓ Is born from Hindu parents.
• ✓ Is not a Muslim, Parsi, Christian or Jews and are not governed under Hindu law.
• ✓ Lodge in India

Under the category those who are not-

• ✓ Under Section 2(2) of HMA, the protection has been given to the schedule tribes from the application of Hindu Laws upon them. The main policy of the Constitution has been to preserve the rich cultural practice of the tribe and not to interfere with their practices unnecessarily. Such tribes are free to practice their own laws upon marriage, succession, adoption etc. However, if the Central Govt. finds it suitable that a particular tribe should be governed by Hindu Law, and then a declaration has to be made in official gazette, for the application of such laws on these tribes.

In ChandraSekhar v. Kulandaivelu 1963 S.C. a person does not cease to be a Hindu if he becomes an atheist or desents or deviates the central doctrine of Hinduism, or lapses from orthodox religious practices, or adopts western way of life, or eats beef.

The word ‘convert’ can be proved before the court of law only when it is shown that the person has renounce his faith and adopted another.

The Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Sastri Yagnapurushadji And Others vs Muldas Brudardas Vaishya And Another (1966) expressly defined the term ‘Hindu’. This case is related to the Swami Narayan temple in Ahmedabad. There is a group of people called the Satsangi who were managing the temple and they restricted non-Satsangi Harijans from entering the temple. They argued that Satsangi is a different religion and they are not bound by Hindu Law. The Supreme Court of India held that the Satsangi, Arya Samajis and Radhaswami, all these belong to the Hindu religion because they originated under Hindu philosophy.

Thus, if a person is born from a Hindu family, he/she is a Hindu. When one of the parents of a child is Hindu and he/she is brought up as a member of the Hindu family, he/she is a Hindu. If a child is born form a Hindu mother and a Muslim father and he/she is brought up as a Hindu then he/she can be considered as a Hindu.

Answer:- Article 32 of the Constitution (Right to Constitutional Remedies): It is a fundamental rights, which states that the individuals have the right to approach the Supreme court seeking enforcement of other fundamental rights recognised by the constitution.

Article 226 is enshrined under Part V of the constitution which puts power in the hands of the High court to issue the writs including Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition and Quo-warranto for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of the citizens and for any other purpose.

However, it is concluded that Article 32 which is known as the heart and soul of the constitution. Supreme Court is called the grantor and defender of fundamental rights. Whereas, Article 226 being a constitutional right gives discretionary power to the High Court. Thus, with the difference in powers both the article ensures that the rights of the citizens are protected and secured.

Answer:- Sharing in the profits of a business does not provide conclusive proof of partnership. While it may be a strong indication of existence of partnership but other factors have to be taken into consideration for determining the same. Share of profits is certainly an important piece of evidence that helps to determine the existence of a partnership, but not the ultimate test.

Under the law, a partnership is defined as a relationship between two or more persons who carry on a business together with a view to making a profit. However, the mere fact that profits are shared does not automatically create a partnership.

In Cox vs. Hickman (1860), it was held that actual conduct of partnership cannot be determined only by sharing of profits of the business. Mutual Agency is regarded as the conclusive proof of partnership.

It is clear from Section 6 that the sharing of profits is not the ultimate test for determining whether a partnership exists. The existence of a partnership depends on the actual intention of the parties and the contract drawn up by them. In some cases, an alleged partner might have a share in the profits of the business, but that does not by default make him a partner.A person may be entitled to a share of the profits of a business as an employee, contractor or creditor but they would not be considered a partner in the business firm.

In conclusion, while sharing in the profits is a significant factor in determining the existence of a partnership, it is not conclusive evidence on its own. Other factors such as the intention to carry on a business together and the degree of control over the business must also be considered to determine the existence of a partnership. The sharing of profit is just a prima facie test of partnership. The conclusive test is that of mutual agency.

Answer:- Apportionment means distribution in proper shares or division of a common fund between several claimants.Section 36 and 37 of the Transfer of Property, 1882 (TPA) deals with apportionment. There are two aspects to it:

• 1. Rules of apportionment by time provided under Section-36 of TPA
• 2. Rules of apportionment by estate provided under Section-37 of TPA

In absence of any specific mention of what portion of income of transfer of property remains with the transferor and what goes to the transferee and from which particular date, the distribution or apportionment of the periodical income between transferor & transferee is governed by rules of-

• • Apportionment by time- It states that-“In the absence of a contract or local usage to the contrary, all rents, annuities, pensions, dividends and other periodical payments in the nature of income shall, upon the transfer of the interest of the person entitled to receive such payments, be deemed, as between the transferor and transferee, to accrue due from day to day and apportionable accordingly but to be payable on the days appointed for the payment thereof”.
  Where ‘A’ transfers his property on rent on Rs 3000 to ‘B’ on 15 August. ‘B’ became owner with effect from 15 August. Here ‘A’ is entitled to get Rs 1400 for 14 days and ‘B’ the purchaser shall get Rs 1600 for 16 days.
• • Apportionment by estate- Apportionment in respect of estate may result either from the act of the parties or from the operation of law. When ‘A’ transfer his property on rent for Rs 3000 to ‘B’ & ‘C’ holding 1/2 & 2/3 shares respectively. Here D has liability to pay Rs 1000 to ‘B’ & Rs 2000 to ‘C’.

Therefore it is concluded that apportionment means the division or sharing out according to plan or ownership. In law this term is used in various senses even various statues define it in various ways and as per the laws regulating these apportionment the process to determine the apportioned amount also changes.

Answer:- De Facto refers to the actual state of affairs or the practical reality. It's less official but more realistic. This is regardless of its legal recognition or legitimacy. It signifies the factual or effective existence of something, even if it may not have the formal or official endorsement.

On the other hand, De Jure pertains to the legal or rightful state of affairs, indicating the status or condition as recognized by law. De Jure Recognition, often called formal recognition, is official. It is granted when the newly formed state acquires permanent stability and statehood. It grants the permanent status of a new born state as a sovereign state.

The following are the key difference between De Facto and De Jure Recognition-

Answer:- Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, defines an ostensible owner. An ostensible owner is one who has all the indicia of ownership without being the real owner. He is the person who is apparently a full and unqualified owner, such as a mortgagee or a hirer of goods. He may be any person, a co-sharer, manager agent or even a complete stranger.

The general rule says that a person cannot convey a better title than he himself has in a property. This statement represents an English maxim- “nemo dat quad non habit” (No one can confer a higher right on property than what he himself possesses) Section-41 of TPA is an exception of this Maxim which says that where with the consent of the real owner another person (ostensible owner) transfers that property for consideration. Such transfer shall not be voidable on the ground that the transferor was not authorized to make it. But for the application of this section it is necessary that transferee:-

• a) Takes reasonable care to find out whether the transferor had the power to make that transfer.
• b) The transfer must be made for something in return(consideration)
• c) Has acted in good faith.

The doctrine of holding out protects the transferee from an ostensible owner and comes into play when the rights of two innocent parties come into conflict. Thus, the transfer by ostensible owner underlines the doctrine of holding out.

In Raj Kumar Koondoo V. Macqueen, 1872, it was observed that it is a principle of natural equity which must be universally applicable that where one man allows another to hold himself out as the owner of the state & a third person purchases it for value, from the apparent owner in the belief that he is a real owner, the man so allows the other to hold himself out shall not be permitted to recover upon his secret title, unless he can overthrow that of the purchaser by showing that he had direct notice of the title, or something which amounts to constructive notice of the real title or that there existed circumstances which ought to have put him on an enquiry that, if prosecuted, would have led to discovery of it.

Thus, an ostensible owner is a person who has all the indications of ownership in a property and looks like the owner of a property but is not a real or genuine owner. He is a person who's name appears on the records and is in the possession of the property but he/she never intended to own the property.

Answer:- According to Section 58(d) of the Transfer of Property Act-

“Where the mortgagor delivers possession or expressly or by implication binds himself to deliver possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee, and authorises him to retain such possession until payment of the mortgage-money, and to receive the rents and profits accruing from the property or any part of such rents and profits and to appropriate the same in lieu of interest, or in payment of the mortgage-money, or partly in lieu of interest or partly in payment of the mortgage-money, the transaction is called an usufructuary mortgage and the mortgagee an usufructuary mortgagee.”

The following are the essentials of usufructuary mortgagee-

• • Delivery of Possession
  The mortgagor must deliver possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee or undertake to do so explicitly or implicitly.
• • Retention of Possession
  The mortgagee retains possession until the mortgage money is paid or appropriated from the rents and profits of the property mentioned in the mortgage deed.
• • No Personal Liability
  The mortgagor has no personal liability to repay the mortgage money.
• • No Foreclosure or Sale
  The mortgagee cannot foreclose the mortgage or sue for the sale of the mortgaged property.
• • Right of Redemption
  According to Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagor has the right to redeem the property by paying the amount due or by discharging the debt with the rents and profits received by the mortgagee.

Thus, it can be concluded that a usufructuary mortgage is a distinctive form of mortgage which enables borrowers with a means to secure loans while retaining ownership of their property. It allows the mortgagor to transfer possession and usage rights to the mortgagee, who enjoys the income and produce from the property until the mortgage debt is repaid fully.

Answer:- The following are the rights of Bailor-

• • Right to terminate the contract of bailment
  A bailor has the right to claim compensation for damages arising from or during the unauthorised use of the goods bailed.
• • Right to seek the return of goods
  In case of gratuitous bailment, the bailor has at any time a right to require the return of goods even though he lent it for a specified time or purpose. However, the bailor will be liable to pay Bailee for the loss exceeding the benefit derived from such bailment.
• • Right to enforce the right of Bailee
  The duties of the Bailee are the rights of the bailor. A bailor therefore may sue the Bailee for enforcement of his right.

The following are the Rights of the Bailee-

• • Right to be indemnified
  In case of pre-mature termination of bailment, the Bailee has right to be indemnified for the loss caused to him.
• • Right to claim compensation
  If Bailee suffered any damage due to the non-disclosure of defects in the goods bailed, Bailee has a right to claim the damages from the bailor.
• • Right to sue the wrongdoer
  If a 3rd person wrongfully deprives the Bailee of the use or possession of the goods bailed, or does them any injury, the Bailee is entitled to use such remedies as the owner might have used in the like case if no bailment had been made, and either the bailor or the Bailee may bring a suit against a 3rd person for such deprivation or injury.
• • Right to return goods to any one of the joint bailors
  The Right to return goods to any one of the joint bailors is several joint owners of goods bails them, the Bailee may deliver them back to or according to the directions of one joint owner without the consent of all in the absence of any agreement to the contrary.
• • Right to recover expenses
  In case of gratuitous bailment, the Bailee is entitled to claim necessary expenses incurred by him for the purpose of bailment.
• • Right against 3 rd party and owner
  Whatever is obtained by way of relief or compensation in any such suit shall, as between the bailor and the Bailee, be dealt with according to their respective interest.

Answer:- According to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, a person is said to have notice of a fact, which he would have known, but for his gross negligence or wilful abstention from making an enquiry or search does not know. However, it is such knowledge which a person with ordinary prudence ought to have known. In other words, constructive notice of facts are those facts which a person ought to have known, but because of gross negligence or wilful abstention does not know it. In Constructive notice, there is a legal presumption, that a person should have known a fact as if he actually knows it.

For Instance, A sells the house by a registered document to B. He later enters into a contract with C to sell him the same house. Law imposes a duty upon C to inspect the registers at the Registrar’s office, and if he does that, he would come to know about the sale in favour of B. A failure to inspect the register will be detrimental to the interests of C, as he would be imputed with constructive notice of the registered transaction.

Therefore, it can be concluded that Constructive notice is knowledge of those facts which a court imputes on a person. If the circumstances indicate that a reasonably prudent person ought to have known a particular fact related to the transaction of transfer, then he will be deemed to know it.

Answer:- Section 391 defines dacoity as follows: “When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt amounts to five or more, every person so committing, attempting, or aiding is said to commit dacoity.”

On the other hand, Robbery is defined under section 390 in Indian Penal Code. It is an aggravated form of theft or extortion. In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. Taking someone’s property through force, without their consideration and using violence and intimidation is said to be robbery.

The following are the differences between Robbery and Dacoity-

Answer:- Section 2(10) of Sales of Goods Acts provides that "Price means money consideration for sale of goods." In a contract of sales of goods consideration must be money which is called price of goods. As in case of any other contract, in contract of sale, Price is essential. If the goods are transferred without price, then it will not amount to sale. In a contract of sale, price is one of the important essentials. Price may be paid or promised to be paid in future but it should always be in form of money.

In a contract of sale of goods price of goods can be ascertained in the following ways-

• • The contract may explicitly state the price
• • The contract may provide a manner, in which the price is to be fixed
• • The price may be determined by the course of dealing between the parties
• • Where neither the contract expressly states the price of goods nor the contract provides the manner in which the price is to be fixed, the buyer is to pay to the seller reasonable price.
• • The contract may provide that the price is to be fixed by the valuation of a third party. If such third party fails or refuses to make the valuation, the sale is avoided. If, however, the goods or any part thereof have been delivered to the buyer and he has appropriated them, but third party fails to determine the price, the buyer is to pay reasonable price of the goods.

Thus, a sale is concluded when there is a transfer of property from seller to buyer for a consideration of money or promise for the same. Consideration of money is essential for a sale. Price in a sale can be determined by the contract itself, left to be fixed by an agreed manner or determined in the course of dealing between the parties.

Answer:- Crime is defined as any act performed or omitted which constitutes an offence and is penalised by law. On the other hand, a tort refers to a civil wrong that causes harm or injury to another person or on their property, which can give rise to a legal claim for compensation.

The following are the differences between Tort and Crime-

Answer:- Abetment is defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the section, “A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

• • Instigates any person to do that thing
• • Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing
• • Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”

Criminal Conspiracy is defined under Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code. It provides that “When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done-

• • An illegal act, or
• • An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.”

The following are the key differences between Abetment and Criminal Conspiracy-

Answer:- Relevancy and Admissibility are not co-extensive terms in the context of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Relevancy determines whether a particular piece of evidence is logically connected to the fact in issue. On the other hand, Admissibility basically means that only the facts which are relevant are admissible in the court of law. The following are the differences between Relevancy and Admissibility-

In Ram Bihari v State of Bihar, AIR 1998, the Supreme Court observed that relevance and admissibility are synonyms to each other but their legal implications are different from each other, and the admissible facts may not be relevant.

Answer:- Criminal Misappropriation of Property is defined under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as “Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

On the other hand, Criminal Breach of Trust is defined under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as “Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers another person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust.”

The following are the key difference between Criminal Misappropriation of Property and Criminal Breach of Trust-

Thus, the primary distinctions between Criminal misappropriation of property and Criminal breach of trust lie in the fact that, in the latter, the person acquires possession of the property through the owner's trust. It implies that the criminal breach of trust involves a kind of contractual bond between the person and the owner. On the contrary, there is no such contractual relationship exist in case of criminal misappropriation of property. Moreover, the Criminal Misappropriation of property deals with movable property whereas Criminal Breach of trust encompasses both movable and immovable property.

Answer:- The right against double jeopardy under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution is a fundamental right and under Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code is a statutory right. The ambit of Article 20 (2) is narrower than that of Section 300. But there are certain differences between Sec. 300 and Art. 20(2) which are as follows-

Answer:- The following are the differences between Pledge and Bailment-

• 1) Bailment involves the transfer of goods from one party to another for a short period, with a specific objective. On the other hand, Pledge is a type of bailment where goods are transferred as security against the payment of a debt.
• 2) Bailment is defined under section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, while pledge is defined under section 172 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
• 3) In bailment, the presence or absence of consideration may vary. It is not necessary for consideration to be present in a bailment agreement. However, in pledge, consideration is always present, as it serves as security for the debt.
• 4) Bailment is primarily intended for the safe-keeping or repair of the goods entrusted to the bailee. On the contrary, the main object of pledging goods is to serve as collateral for the repayment of a debt.
• 5) In bailment, the receiver does not have the right to sell the goods entrusted to them. However, if the pawnor fails to redeem the goods within a reasonable time, the pawnee can sell the goods after providing notice to the pawnor.
• 6) In bailment, the bailee is allowed to use the goods solely for the intended purpose mentioned in the agreement. In contrast, the pawnee in a pledge arrangement has no right to use the goods pledged as security.

Thus, the scope of bailment is very wide whereas Pledge is limited in nature. Bailment involves the temporary transfer of goods for safekeeping or repair, while the pledge is the transfer of goods as collateral for a debt payment.

Answer:- Section 216 and Section 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, deals with alteration or addition of the charges. Section 216 empowers the court to alter or add to the charge during the course of trial. It is provided that any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.

• If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that the proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge.
• If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.
• If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless, sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.

According to Section 217 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, whenever a charge is altered or added to by the Court after the commencement of the trial, the prosecutor and the accused shall be allowed-

• to recall or re-summon, and examine with reference to such alteration or addition any witness who may have been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, consider that the prosecutor or the accused, as the case may be, desires to recall or re-examine such witnesses for the purpose of vexation or delay and for defeating the ends of justice
• to call any further witness whom the court may think to be material

Answer:- The following are the differences between Estoppel and Waiver-

Answer:- Section 24 of the Sales of Goods Act says & When goods are delivered to the buyer on approval or on sale or return or other similar terms, the property therein passes to the buyer-

• (a) When he signifies his approval or acceptance to the seller or does any other act adopting the transaction.
• (b) If he does not signify his approval or acceptance to seller but retains the goods without giving notice of rejection, then if a time has been fixed for the return of the goods, on the expiration of such time, and if no time has been fixed, on the expiration of a reasonable time."

When the goods are sold on approval basis or sale or return basis, property in goods does not pass to buyer, on delivery of goods it passes –

• (1) When buyer signify his acceptance or
• (2) When buyer adopts the transaction or
• (3) When buyer does not return the goods after stipulated time or reasonable time

Section 42 of Sales of Goods Act provides "The buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when he intimates to the seller that he has accepted them or when the goods have been delivered to him and does any act in relation to them which is inconsistent with the ownership of seller..."

In the present case, ‘B’ after having taken the delivery of jewellery from seller on approval basis started using the jewellery which implies the ‘B’ has adopted the transaction, the property in goods passes to ‘B’. Therefore, if jewellery is stolen, then ‘B’ has to sustain the loss and ‘A’ can recover the price of jewellery.

Answer:- Section 218(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure provides the general Rule that "for every distinct offence of which any person is accused, there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately."

It is important to note that the provisions of Sections 219, 220 and 221 are exception to general Rule as provided by Section 218.

Section 219 provides that when a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three. The proviso to Section 219 explains that for the purposes of this Section, an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under Section 380 of the Code.

Thus, an accused in the present case can only be charged and tried at one trial for any number of offences of the same kind not exceeding three committed within one year. An accused cannot be tried for more than three offences at one trial. Consequently, there cannot be any joinder of four offences of theft at one trial.

Answer:- An Estoppel is a principle whereby a party is precluded from denying the existence of fact which he has formerly admitted. In other words, Estoppel is a rule of law by which a person is held bound by presentation made by him or arises out of his conduct.

Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872, incorporates the ‘Law of Estoppel’ and provides-

"When one person has by his declaration, act or omission intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief neither he nor his representative shall be allowed in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative to deny the truth of that thing."

In Chaitanya Charan v. Manik Chandra, AIR 1972, the Court observed that "Section 115 of Evidence Act lays down that when one person by making false representation either by his words or by conduct has intentionally caused another to believe a thing to be true which actually is not true and to act upon such belief, than neither such person nor his representative in a subsequent proceeding will be allowed to say that the representation is false."

In the case in hand, A made a representation to B to the effect that the land belongs to A. This representation of A at that time was false and was made by A to B with the intention to induce B to purchase that land. B believing the representation of A to be true, purchased that land, so B acted upon the representation of A and paid purchase consideration to A when A was not lawful owner of that land. Now, subsequently when A has actually becomes owner of that property, cannot deny the earlier sale of land made by him A to B. He will be estopped from saying that at the time of said sale, he was not owner of land and thus, sale was not binding. But A had made representation to B that land belongs to A and B believing that representation to be true has acted upon such representation by paying sale consideration to A, presuming him to be owner of land. It is important to note that A has already taken some advantage at the cost of B. Thus, A will be estopped from denying such advantage.

Answer:- Section 151 of Indian Contract Act says that in all cases of bailment, the bailee is bound to take as much care of goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances take of his own goods of same bulk, quality and value as goods bailed.

Section 152 of Act further provides that bailee in the absence of any special contract is not responsible for any loss, destruction, deterioration of thing bailed, if he has taken the amount of care as described in Section 151 of the Act.

In the case in hand, Goldsmith had kept the gold in his safe and has taken due care by posting watchman outside the room in which safe was kept, so goldsmith took as much care as a man of ordinary prudence would have taken in his own case under similar circumstances so goldsmith is not liable to pay anything for Gold of 'A' which has been taken away by dacoits along with other properties of goldsmith.

Answer:- Section 7 of Indian Limitation Act is supplement to Section 6. Section 6 of Act excuses-

• • An Insane Person
• • Minor
• • Idiot

to file a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree, within the time prescribed by law and enables him to file suit or make an application after the above said disability has ceased counting the period of time from the date on which disability ceased.

Section 7 provides:

"Where one of several persons jointly entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is under any such disability and a discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person, time will run against them all. But where no such discharge can be given, time will not run as against any of them until one of them becomes capable of giving such discharge without the concurrence of the others or until the disability has ceased."

In the case in hand ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ are partners. Every partner being an agent of every other partner for purposes of firm's business can give a valid discharge for debts of Partnership. Here, ‘B’ and ‘C’ are under disability and cannot give a valid discharge in respect of debt due to firm. But ‘D’ can give a discharge without the concurrence of ‘B’ and ‘C’, thus, time would run against all of them.

Answer:- The concept of dying declaration finds its root in the legal maxim “Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire”, which means a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. A dying declaration refers to the statements made by a deceased person before his death where the person states the cause of his death or as to circumstances that leads to his death. Now, the question arises whether a dying declaration form the basis of conviction?

So, if the truthfulness of a dying declaration is accepted, it can always form the basis of conviction of the accused and if a dying declaration is acceptable as truthful event in the absence of corroborative evidence, the court may act upon it and convict. A truthful, coherent and consistent dying declaration needs no corroboration and conviction may be based on it. The Supreme Court in Panneerselvam v. State of Tamil Nadu (2008) held that it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of the conviction unless it is rule of prudence.

The law is very clear that if the dying declaration has been recorded in accordance with law, is reliable and gives a cogent and possible explanation of the occurrence of the events, then the dying declaration can certainly be relied upon by the Court and could form the sole piece of evidence resulting in the conviction of the accused.

In Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2010), the Supreme Court held that the conviction of the accused can be sustained solely based on the dying declaration if the declaration made by the victim inspires the confidence of the court and proves to be trustworthy i.e., the victim was in a conscious state of mind to make such a dying declaration.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Naeem v. State of U.P (2024) observed that the Court is required to satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. It has further been held that, where the Court is satisfied about the dying declaration being true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. The Court has observed that if after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration.

Thus, it can be concluded that if the dying declaration passes the test of scrutiny it can be relied on as the sole basis of conviction.

Answer:- When on a transfer of property , an interest therein is created in favour of a person

• • without specifying the time when it is to take effect
• • in terms specifying that it is to take effect forth with
• • in terms specifying that it is to take effect on the happening of an event which must happen

such interest is vested , unless a contrary intention appears from the terms of the transfer.
A vested interest is not defeated by the death of the transferee before he obtains possession.

An intention that an interest shall not be vested is not to be inferred merely from a provision

• • whereby the enjoyment thereof is postponed
• • whereby a prior interested in the same property is given or reserved to some other person
• • whereby income arising from the property is directed to be accumulated until the time of enjoyment arrives
• • from a provision that if a particular event shall the interest shall pass to another person

When a transfer depends on an event that is guaranteed to happen, the transferee gains a vested interest in the property. This indicates that the transfer is complete, even if the property has not yet been possessed. A vested interest provides an immediate right, whether that right is for current or future enjoyment of the property. Hence, an interest that does not depend on any preceding condition is known as a vested interest.

When an interest is set to take effect only after a specific condition is met, this is known as a condition precedent. Conversely, a vested interest is unconditional and becomes effective as soon as the interest is transferred. Although the enjoyment of a vested interest may be postponed, the interest itself is immediate. If the transferee dies, their vested interest passes to their legal representatives, regardless of whether they had taken possession before death. Therefore, a vested interest remains valid even if the transferee dies.

An interest created on a transfer of property is said to be vested where

• • no time is specified for it to take effect • it is expressed to take effect forth with • it is to take effect on the happening of event which must happen

A vested interest is nonetheless a vested interest even where the transfer deed contains a provision whereby

• • the enjoyment thereof is postponed
• • a prior interest in the same property is given to some other person
• • the income arising from the property is directed to be accumulated until the time of enjoyment arrives
• • on the happening of a particular event , the interest passes to another person.

Answer:- A Wakf is generally managed by a Mutawalli. He is the Superintendent. The Mutawalli does not own wakf property. He is only manager and supervisor. Though his functions resemble that of a trustee but he is not a trustee. The Mutawalli has to protect the wakf property, and must discharge his duties with diligence, care and honesty. He cannot alienate the wakf property except when he is allowed expressly by the wakf deed. A mutawalli also cannot create a permanent lease of the wakf property except with the express provision of the wakf deed or permission of Court. He can grant a lease not exceeding 3 years. If it is a non-agricultural property, it can to be leased for more than one year. The remuneration of a Mutawalli is fixed in the Wakfnama. If it is not specified, the Court can fix his salary, not exceeding 1/10 of the income of the wakf property.

The wakf appoints the first Mutawalli. The wakif can also name the persons who should succeed the first mutawalli. Sometimes the power to nominate the succeeding Mutawalli is given to the first Mutawalli, if the method of succession is not mentioned in the wakf deed. If the office of the Mutawalli falls vacant, the wakif or his executor can appoint a successor. If the above chance is not there even the mutawalli vacating the office can appoint his successor. The office of mutawalli is not hereditary, but if it is customary, then such heredity is recognized. A mutawalli cannot transfer his office to another person. The wakf cannot dismiss a Mutawalli already appointed, except if it is mentioned in the wakf deed. The person to be appointed as a mutawalli should be a major and of sound mind. Generally, a female can also become a Mutawalli, but if the wakf is for religious purpose, a woman is not appointed as Mutawalli. The Mutawalli, generally is a Muslim, but in exceptional cases, even non-muslims are appointed as Mutawalli.

A mutawalli has the following powers-

• (i) He can sue for a declaration that he is the Mutawalli, and also for the possession of the wakf property
• (ii) During execution proceedings, the property of a wakf is not liable for attachment
• (iii) The Mutawalli may obtain the Courts permission for alienating the wakf property
• (iv) Possession of a Mutawalli cannot be adverse to the wakf

Answer:- ‘Necessity’ is an important general defence to the criminal liability recognized by the Indian Penal Code under Section 81. Necessity as a defence means unavoidable circumstances or situations critical in nature leaving no choice in action. In other words, necessity means an act which can in no possible manner be avoided. Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code protects the cases where an act is done voluntarily but in good faith and without any criminal intention to cause harm, for the purpose of preventing a greater evil.

Section 81 of IPC provides that “Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is lively 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 person or property”.

For Example- ‘A’ in great fire, pulls down houses in good faith of saving human life or property. ‘A’ is not guilty of any offence.

The following are the essential ingredients of Section 81-

• The act must be done without any criminal intention
• The act must be done in good faith
• The purpose behind the act should be to prevent a greater harm to person or property

In R v. Dudley Stephen (1884), defendants were charged with murdering a fellow person who has also been cast adrift in a boat with food and water under an extreme necessity of hunger. The Court in this case held that the act of killing a fellow person to preserve one's own life cannot be justified. Therefore, the defense of necessity cannot be used in such cases.

The defence of necessity can be pleaded successfully in a case-

• 1) Where the evil averted is not lesser than the offence committed
• 2) Where the evil could have been averted only by committing the offence
• 3) Where no greater harm that is necessary for averting of evil was caused.

Under Section 81 of Indian Penal Code, it will be a question of fact in each case whether the harm prevented was so imminent as to justify the risk of doing the act with knowledge that it was likely to cause harm.

Answer:- The following are the differences between Contract of Sale & Hire Purchaser-

Answer:- The following are the differences between False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution-

Answer:- Ans. The offence of kidnapping has been defined by Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code as under:

"Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.

Explanation: The words "lawful guardian" in this Section includes any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.

Explanation: This Section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose."

So one of the essentials to constitute this offence is that minor must have been taken or enticed out of keeping of lawful guardian of such minor without the consent of such guardian.

If the husband and wife live separate and children are given in the custody of the wife under an order of an court, the father cannot take away the children from the mother. If he does so he will be guilty of kidnapping. But if there is no order of the Court, the removal by the father of his child from the custody of its mother, who has been deserted by him, will not amount to kidnapping from lawful guardianship because a Hindu father in preference to the mother is recognized as the legal guardian of all his legitimate male or female minor children.

In the present case, if the minor girl was in the keeping of her mother under the orders of a court, the father is liable to be convicted for an offence of kidnapping. But if there is no such order, the removal of the minor out of the keeping of her mother by father would not amount to any such offence since the father is the natural guardian of the minor, and he cannot be said to have removed the minor from the keeping of lawful guardian

Answer:- The general principle is that if there is a right, there must be a remedy for its violation though the injury does not cause actual or pecuniary damages. This principle is expressed by "injuria sine damnum". The main gist of the maxim is that it refers to the violation of a legitimate right without causing any harm, loss, or injury to the aggrieved party. Whenever a legal right is infringed, the person in whom the right is vested has the right to take legal action.

Rights are of two kinds:

• • Absolute
• • Qualified

A violation of absolute right will furnish a cause of action, without proof of actual damage and this case is not with qualified right. Therefore, in their violation law does not presume damage without actual proof.

A classification of rights into absolute and qualified, gives rise to similar classification of torts. In this way torts are of two kinds-

• (1) Those which are actionable per se
• (2) Those which are actionable only on proof of actual damage resulting from them The maxim, therefore, means infringement of absolute right without any actual loss or damage. The act of trespassing upon another's land is wrongful and is actionable, even though it has done the plaintiff not the slightest harm.

In Ashby v. While, (1703), the plaintiff succeeded in his action, even though the defendant's act did not cause any damage. The plaintiff was a qualified voter at a parliamentary election, but the defendant, a returning officer, wrongfully refused to take plaintiff's vote. No loss was suffered by such refusal because the candidate for whom he wanted to vote won in spite of that. It was held that the defendant was liable.

The following observations made by the court aptly clarify the principle of the maxim:

"If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it, and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy, for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal. Every injury imports a damage, though it does not cost a party one farthing (or paisa), the damage being that the person is thereby hindered of his right. As in an action for slanderous words, though a man does not lose a penny by reason of speaking them yet he shall have an action. A man shall have an action against another for riding over his ground, though it does him no damage, for it is an invasion of his property, and the other has no right to come there."

In Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, (AIR 1986), the petitioner, an M.L.A. of J & K Assembly, was wrongfully detained by the police while he was going to attend the Assembly session. Thus, he was deprived of his fundamental right to personal liberty and constitutional right to attend the Assembly session. The court awarded exemplary damages of Rs. 50,000 by way of consequential relief.

In case of injuria sine damnum the loss suffered by the plaintiff may be relevant only as regards the measure of damages. Generally nominal damages are awarded by the court. If, however, the court feels that the violation of a legal right is owing to mischievous and malicious act, as had happened in the case of Bhim Singh, the court may grant even exemplary damages.

Thus, Injuria sine damnum is a legal principle that recognizes the violation of a legal right without the need for actual loss or harm. It emphasizes the importance of protecting and upholding individual rights, ensuring that individuals are not unjustly deprived of their legal entitlements.

Answer:- The following are the differences between Set-off & Counter Claim-

Answer:- The following are the differences between Extortion and Criminal Intimidation-

Answer:- According to Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872-

"A contract to do an act which after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promisor could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful."

It means that every contract is based on the assumption that the parties to the contract will be able to perform the same when the due date of performance arrives. If because of some event the performance has either become impossible or unlawful, the contract becomes void.

In Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram, 1954, the Court noted that if fulfilling a contract becomes impossible not only due to literal physical impossibility but also when the contract's object becomes impractical to fulfil, it falls within the scope of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act.

In the present case, the female singer, A, ate ice cream a day before her scheduled performance, which caused her voice to crack. If A knew that eating ice cream would cause her voice to crack, then her action would constitute self-induced frustration. She would be liable for breaching the contract. However, it is evident from the facts that she was unaware of the consequences of eating ice cream.

Thus, B has failed to prove that A intentionally caused her voice to crack, the defence of frustration is valid, and the contract is discharged. Therefore, B is not entitled to recover any damages from A.

Answer:- According to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, “Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction --

• (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
• (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid acquiesce in such institution;
• (c) Or the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”
  According the explanation, “A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.”

If a suit is filed against a Corporation on the ground of its carrying on business, then in view of Explanation to Section 20, a suit will lie where the Corporation has its head office even if no part of cause of action arises there or branch office where cause of action has arose.

In the present case, the suit against the Company can be filed at Chandigarh where it has its head office, or at Chennai where the Company has its branch office and cause of action has arisen at Chennai. No suit can be entertained by a Court at Jaipur or Mumbai, although the company has its branch offices at those places, because no part of the cause of action arose either at Jaipur or Mumbai.

Answer:- The following are the differences between Kidnapping and Abduction-

Answer:- Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, vests the High Court with revisional jurisdiction. Revision, in its literal sense means reviewing, re-examining, and scrutinizing a matter to ensure its accuracy and correctness. The main purpose of Section 115 is to prevent arbitrary, capricious, illegal, or irregular conduct by Subordinate Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction.

Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code lays down all the conditions when the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction:

• 1. The case must be decided
• 2. The revisional jurisdiction is exercised when no appeal lies in the case decided by the Subordinate Court
• 3. The subordinate court has decided such case by:
  •  Exercise of jurisdiction which is not vested to that court by law
  •  It has failed to exercise the vested jurisdiction
  •  Illegal exercise of the vested power or with immaterial irregularity

The following are the differences between Revision and Review-

Answer:- The word Presumption, in Law of Evidence, means an inference, affirmative or negative of the existence of some fact, drawn by a Court through the process of probable reasoning. The following are the differences between Presumption of Fact and Presumption of Law-

Answer:- The following are the differences between Res Judicata and Estoppel-

• ✓ The origin of Res Judicata is a court decision in a previous case whereas the origin of Estoppel is the act of the parties.
• ✓ Res judicata doctrine was introduced to protect public policy by ending the litigation. On the other hand, Estoppels proceeds upon the doctrine of equity.
• ✓ Res judicata is a bar to a court's jurisdiction. It is a fundamental test for bringing a lawsuit while Estoppel is a rule of evidence.
• ✓ The effect of res judicata is binding on both litigants. On the contrast, when estoppel is used, the effect only applies to the party who made the previous statement or conduct and only that person will be held responsible for the new course of action.
• ✓ Res judicata forbidden a person averring the same thing twice in the litigations whereas Estoppel prevents the person from saying two opposite things at a time.

Thus, the doctrine of Res Judicata limits a plaintiff's ability to recover damages from the defendant on the same injury more than once. In contrast, the doctrine of Estoppel safeguards people from fraud or misrepresentation.

Answer:- The following are the grounds under which plaint can be rejected-

• 1. If a plaint does not disclose the cause of action:
  If the plaint filed by the plaintiff, does not specify any cause of action. The court may reject the plaint if the facts mentioned do not establish a valid legal claim.
• 2. Lack of Jurisdiction:
  The court must have the authority to hear and decide the case. If the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties involved, the plaint can be rejected.
• 3. Relief claim is undervalued:
  When the relief claimed is undervalued and the valuation of the claim is not corrected or extended by the court. In such case, the plaint will be rejected.
• 4. Suit barred by law:
  If plaint itself shows that the claim is barred by limitation, the plaint can be rejected.
• 5. Plaint not in duplicate:
  According to Order IV Rule 1, every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint in duplicate. If such a requirement is not fulfilled then the plaint can be rejected.
• 6. Non-compliance with procedural formalities:
  Courts require plaints to adhere to specific formatting and filing requirements. These may include proper stamping, correct court fees, and compliance with prescribed forms. Any non- compliance can result in rejection.
• 7. Res Judicata or Lis Pendens:
  If the matter in question has already been decided by a court or is currently pending before another court, the plaint can be rejected based on the principles of res judicata (a matter already judged) or lis pendens (a matter already in litigation).
• 8. Vague or Ambiguous Claims:
  A plaint must clearly state the facts constituting the cause of action. If the claims are-
  • ✓ Vague
  • ✓ Ambiguous
  • ✓ lack necessary details
  It becomes difficult for the defendant to respond effectively, and the court may reject the plaint.
• 9. Absence of Necessary Parties:
  All parties that have a direct interest in the dispute must be included in the lawsuit. Failure to join necessary parties can lead to the rejection of the plaint.
• 10. Frivolous or Abuse of Process:
  The Courts have the authority to reject plaints that are vexatious, frivolous, or meant to abuse the legal process.

Thus, it can be concluded that if a plaint is defective on any of the grounds under Order VII Rule 11, the court has the authority to dismiss it.

Answer:- Primary evidence, which is also known as best evidence, refers to the actual documents produced for the inspection of the court. Primary evidence is the most reliable proof of the existence of an object since it is the original document itself.

• For example-
  Birth Certificate issued by Municipal Corporation

Secondary evidence refers to evidence that is presented in the absence of primary evidence. It is considered a substitute for the original or primary evidence.

• For Example-
  Copy of 10 th mark sheet with Date of Birth is admissible in case of loss of Birth Certificate

The following are the differences between Primary Evidence and Secondary Evidence-

Answer:- Sections 87, 88 and 89 of the Indian Penal code provides the circumstances under which a valid consent can be claimed in defence of a charge for an offence. The acts which would otherwise be offences shall cease to be so in the following circumstances-

• (1) Section 87

  According to Section 87 of the Indian Penal Code, “Nothing is an offence which is not intended to cause death on grievous hurt; if the person to whom such hurt is caused being above the age of 18 years has expressly or impliedly consented to suffer harm, or to take the risk of any harm.”

  For Example- A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement; this agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm which in the course of such fencing may be caused without foul play and if A while playing fairly hurts Z, A has committed no offence.

  Section 87 applies to injuries during games, sports, or similar activities.

  In Poonai Fattemah v. Emp, the accused who professed to be a snake charmer, induced the deceased to believe him that he has the power to protect him from any harm caused by the snake bite. The deceased believed him and got bitten by the snake and died. The defence of consent was dismissed.

  It is important to note that Section 87 will not provide any protection where the act by itself is one which is prohibited by law.

• (2) Section 88

  According to Section 88 of the Indian Penal Code, “Nothing is an offence what is not intended to cause death by reason of the harm that has resulted from that act, if it is done in good faith for benefit of another who has given his consent, express or implied, to suffer that harm or to take the risk of that harm.”

  For Example- A, a surgeon, knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z, who suffers under a painful complaint, but not intending to cause Z's death and intending in good faith with Z's consent, performs an operation. A has committed no offence, even if it turns out that the operation is unsuccessful.

  In R.P Dhanda V. Bhurelal, the appellant, a medical doctor, performed an eye operation for cataract with patient’s consent. The operation resulted in the loss of eyesight. The doctor was protected under this defence as he acted in good faith.

• (3) Section 89

  According to Section 89 of the Indian Penal Code, “Nothing is an offence which is in good faith for the benefit of person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind or by consider, either express or implied, of his guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to that person:

Provided -

• Firstly, that this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death or to the attempting to cause death.
• Secondly, that this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt or the causing of any grievous disease or infirmity.
• Thirdly, that this exception shall not extend to the voluntarily causing of grievous hurt or the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death, grievous hurt, or the causing of any grievous disease or infirmity.
• Fourthly, that his exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would be extend.”

It is important to note that Section 89 of the Indian Penal Code protects acts done in good faith for the benefit of a child or an insane person or with their guardian’s consent.

Answer:- A man’s reputation is considered valuable property and every man has a right to protect his reputation. This right is acknowledged as an inherent personal right and is a jus in rem i.e., a right good against all persons in the world. Defamation refers to any oral or written statement made by a person which damages the reputation of another person.

According to Prof. Winfield - "Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generality or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person."

In S.N.M. Abdi v. Prafulla Kumar Mohanta, AIR 2002, it was observed that the publication in order to be defamatory, a publication must tend to lower the plaintiff in the opinion of men whose standard of opinion, the court can properly recognise or tend to induce them to entertain an ill opinion of him.

The following are the kinds of defamation-

• ✓ Libel
• ✓ Slander

The following are the differences between Libel & Slander-

• • Libel is addressed to the eyes whereas Slander is addressed to the ears
• • In case of Libel, the defamatory statement is made in some permanent and visible form, such as writing, printing, pictures etc. whereas in case of Slander, the defamatory statement is made by spoken words or some other transitory form, whether visible or audible, such as gestures etc.
• • Libel is an actionable tort as well as a criminal offence whereas Slander is a civil injury only and not a criminal offence except in certain cases
• • Libel is actionable per se (in itself) i.e., without proof of actual damage while Slander is actionable only on proof of actual damage

Answer:- Under the Islamic law, temporary marriage, known as Muta marriage or nikah is a contractual arrangement. It involves a mutual agreement between a man and a woman to live as spouses for a predetermined duration, with an agreed-upon dower (mahr). Muta marriages automatically dissolve at the end of the specified term or upon the death of either party.

The following are the conditions of a Muta Marriage-

• • The parties must have attained the age of puberty, which is above 15 years of age.
• • There is no restriction on the number of Muta wives.
• • There must be free consent by the parties.
• • The time period and Dower must be mentioned in the nikah nama.
• • The cohabitation between the parties is lawful.
• • The children born out of such marriage are legitimate and have the right to inherit the properties of both parents.
• • The husband and wife do not have any mutual right of inheritance.
• • Muta wife is not entitled to claim maintenance under personal law, but she can claim under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
• • The wife is entitled to get full Dower if the husband cohabits, but if the husband doesn’t cohabit, then the wife is entitled to half dower.
• • Divorce is not recognised under Muta Marriage.

Answer:- The doctrine of Privity of contract is a fundamental principle in contract law which governs the rights and obligations of parties to a contract. It means that only the parties to a contract can enforce the terms of that contract. When a contract is made between two or more parties upon certain terms and conditions, it is only those parties to contract are entitled to initiate suit.

Thus, the doctrine of Privity of contract means that only those persons who are parties to the contract can enforce the same. A stranger to the contract cannot enforce a contract even though the contract may have been entered into for his benefit.

The following are the exceptions to the doctrine of Privity of contract-

• • In case of trust, the property of the trust is for the benefit of the beneficiaries. They are not parties to the contract of trusts but they do have a right to file the suit for preserving the trust property and safeguarding their interests.
• • When a charge is created on property for the benefit of a person who is not a party to the contract the person in whose favour the charge is created. Such person has a right to file a suit for ensuring the benefit from charge irrespective of the fact that he is not party to the contract.
• • At the time of partition of the joint Hindu family property, if some arrangement is made for the marriage or maintenance of a third party, such persons can file a suit for their maintenance or for the expenses of marriage although they have not been the parties to the partition agreement.
• • When under the contract a promise is made to a person who is not a party to the contract and the contract is mainly based on such promise that third person (stranger) can bring a suit for the performance of the contracts if he fails to get the amount as per promise.
• • If the court feels that not allowing the stranger to bring an action will amount to or result in injustice in such case the court may authorise such person to bring an action.

Therefore, it can be concluded that only parties to contract can sue each other and no stranger is allowed to enter between the parties to sue.

Answer:- Under the Indian Evidence Act, the documents have been divided into-

• ✓ Private documents
• ✓ Public documents

Public Documents has been defined under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act.

According to Section 74, the following documents are Public documents-

• (1) Documents forming the acts are records of the act-
  • (i) Of the sovereign authority
  • (ii) Of official bodies and tribunals
  • (iii) Of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country
• (2) Public records kept in any State of private documents
  According to section 74 a document which is the act or record of the acts of a sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, public officer, legislative, judicial and executive is a public document. A public document is one prepared by a public servant in discharge of his public official duties. It must have been prepared by a public servant in his official duty.
  According to Section 75 of Indian Evidence Act, all documents other than public documents are private documents.
  Section 77 provides that the contents of public documents can be proved by filing certified copies of such documents.
  
  Section 78 of Act provides that Public documents may be proved in following ways-

• (1) Acts, orders or notifications of the Central Government in any of its departments, or of the Crown Representatives of any State Government or any department of any State Government, by the records of the departments, certified by the heads of those departments respectively, or by any documents purporting to be printed by order of any such Government or; as the case may be, of the Crown Representative.
• (2) The proceedings of the Legislature, by the journals of those bodies respectively, or by published Act or abstracts, or by copies purporting to be printed by order of the Government concerned.
• (3) Proclamations, orders or regulations issued by Her Majesty or by Privy Council, or by any department of Her Majesty's Government, by copies or extracts contained in the London Gazette, or purporting to be printed by the Queen's Printer.
• (4) The Act of the Executive or the proceedings of the legislature of a foreign country, by journals published by their authority, or commonly received in that country as such, or by a copy certified under the seal of the country or sovereign, or by a recognition thereof in some Central Act.
• (5) The proceedings of a Municipal Body in a State; by a copy of such proceedings, certified by the legal keeper thereof, or by a printed book purporting to be published by the authority of such body.
• (6) Public documents of any other class in a foreign country, by the original, or by a copy printed by the legal keeper thereof, with a certified under the seal of Notary Public, or of an Indian Council or diplomatic agent, that the copy is duly certified by the officer having the legal custody of original, and upon proof of the character of the document according to the law of the foreign country.

Answer:- Volenti non fit injuria is a settled principle of law that no man can sue for a tort which he had consented either –

• ✓ expressly or
• ✓ impliedly

For example - injuries received in course of a lawful game or sports are not actionable.

The latin maxim Volenti non fit injuria means a harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute legal injury and as such it is not actionable.

The following are the ingredients of the maxim volenti non fit injuria-

• The plaintiff had the knowledge of risk
• The plaintiff with the knowledge of risk has voluntarily agreed to suffer the harm

• (1) Knowledge of Risk
  According to the maxim Volenti non fit injuria, the Plaintiff must know the nature of the act and its extent of risk or danger. If the plaintiff is unaware or reasonably cannot understand the nature and extent of the risk with the performance of an act. It is presumed that he had no knowledge of risk and defence of volenti non fit injuria will not be available to the defendant.
• (2) Free-consent
  In Smith v. Baker & Sons, (1891), the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant and the site where he used to work had a crane which carried rocks over their heads. The plaintiff had also complained to the defendant about it. One day the plaintiff was injured because of these rocks falling on him. Thus, he sued the defendant for damages. It was held that the defendant was liable and had to pay damages to the plaintiff because the plaintiff had consented to the danger of the job but not to the lack of care.

Thus, volenti non fit injuria is one of the defence under the law of torts in which the person who has committed a wrong is exempted from liability.

Answer:- Pardon is an act of mercy or forgiveness. Article 72 of the Constitution of India provides pardoning power to the President of India whereas Article 161 bestows the same power to the Governor of the state. The following are the differences between Article 72 and Article 161-

Answer:- The following are the differences between Muta Marriage and Nikah-

• 1. The regular marriage (Nikah) is recognised by both Shias and Sunnis whereas Muta marriage is recognised only by Shia sect.
• 2. Nikah is a permanent contract while Muta marriage is temporary and is for specified period of time.
• 3. In Nikah, the partners are entitled to right to inherit the property whereas in case of Muta Marriage, there is no such right to inheritance of property.
• 4. In Nikah, the relation once established between a wife and husband is dissolved only on divorce or death of any of them whereas Muta Marriage is automatically dissolved on the expiry of the specified period.
• 5. In Muta Marriage, there is a specified dower whereas in Nikah, dower can be given at any time in the marriage.
• 6. In Muta Marriage, there is a provision of one-half dower in case of no consummation whereas in Nikah, full dower is provided to the wife whether consummation is done or not.
• 7. In Nikah, the dower can either be expressed or implied while in Muta marriage, it is always expressed.
• 8. In Nikah, the wife is entitled to get maintenance during the period of Iddat in case of divorce while in Muta marriage, a woman has no right to take maintenance after the dissolution of marriage.

Answer:- The following are the powers of the President-

• 1) Executive Powers of President
  Article 52 of the Constitution lay down that there shall be a President of India. Further Article 53(1) provides that the executive powers of the union shall be vested in the President and it shall be exercised by him either directly or through officer’s subordinates to him in accordance with law.
• 2) Financial Powers of the President
  
  • • To introduce the money bill, the prior recommendation of President is must
  • • To make a demand for grants, the recommendation of President is a pre-requisite
  • • Contingency Fund of India is under the control of the President
• 3) Judicial Powers of President
  
  • • The appointment of Chief Justice and Supreme Court/High Court Judges are on the President
• 4) Pardoning Powers
  
  According to Article 72 (1) the President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit and commute the sentence of any person convicted by any offence:
  • a) In all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Marshall.
  • b) In all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive powers of the Union extends.
  • c) In all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.
• 5) Diplomatic Powers of President
  
  • • International Treaties and agreements that are approved by the Parliament are negotiated and concluded in his name
  • • The President is the representative of India in international forums and affairs
• 6) Military Powers of President
  
  The President is the commander of the defence forces of India. He appoints:
  • 1. Chief of the Army
  • 2. Chief of the Navy
  • 3. Chief of the Air Force
• 7) Ordinance making Power of the President
  Article 123 deals with the ordinance making power of the President. The President has many legislative powers and this power is one of them. He promulgates an ordinance on the recommendation of the Union Cabinet.
• 8) Veto Power of the President
  The Veto Power of the President of India is provided by Article 111 of the Indian Constitution. When a bill is introduced in the Parliament, Parliament can pass the bill and before the bill becomes an act, it has to be presented to the President for his approval. It is on the President to either reject the bill or return the bill or withhold his assent to the bill. The choice of the President over the bill is called his veto power.
• 9) Emergency Powers
  Under the Provisions of Article 352, 356 and 350, the President has the power to declare emergency situation either in the whole territory of India or in any State or part of it.

Answer:- The term ‘Partnership’ is defined under Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 as-

"Partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all."

According to Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the following are the essential elements which are necessary to constitute a Partnership-

• ✓ There should be an agreement between the persons who wants to be partners
• ✓ The purpose of creating partnership should be carrying of business
• ✓ The motive for the creation of partnership should be acquiring and sharing profits
• ✓ All of them or any of them acting for all, i.e. in mutual agency should carry on the business of the firm

• 1) Agreement
  The first element relates to the voluntary contractual nature of partnership. It emphasizes the fact that partnership can only arise as a result of an agreement, express or implied, between parties. It is important to note that it cannot be the result of a status.
• 2) Business
  Partnership can be formed only for the purpose of carrying on some business. According to Section 2(b) of Partnership Act provides that the term ‘business’ includes every trade, occupation or profession.
• 3) Sharing of Profits
  An important element in the definition of Partnership is the motive, which leads to the formation of a firm, i.e., sharing of profits. The members of religious or charitable societies or clubs are not partners, as the idea of sharing of profits is not involved in these associations. The sharing of losses is not involved in the definition because an agreement to share losses is not a test of the existence of partnership but is generally implied in a partnership agreement.
• 4) Mutual Agency
  The cardinal principle which governs partnership is the mutual agency amongst the partners. It means each partner is the agent of the firm as well as of the other partners. The business of the firm may be carried on by all the partners or by any of them acting for all.

Therefore, the above mentioned elements must be present in order to constitute a Partnership.

Answer:- In the case in hand, ' A' entered into a contract to marry with 'X' while'A's wife (W) was still living. Later, when 'W' died 'X' filed suit against 'A' for breach of agreement and for damages. It is important to find out whether such agreement between 'A' and 'X' is enforceable or not?

Now the question arises whether after the death of A's wife 'W', is this contract enforceable or not?

Section 23 of Indian Contract Act comes into the picture which lays down that:

The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless:

• a) it is forbidden by law or
• b) is of such nature that if permitted, it would defeat the provision of law
• c) is fraudulent
• d) involves or implies injury to a person or property of another
• e) the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy

In each of these cases consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which object or consideration is unlawful is void.

In the present case, making agreement to marry with other woman during the life time of a wife is prohibited by society as well as by law being immoral and opposed to public policy. Thus, agreement between 'A' and 'X' is void being its object is unlawful.

Answer:- Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act defines Immovable Property as, Immovable property does not include standing timber, growing crops or grass.

The definition of Immoveable property under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act does not clearly state the real nature of the term.

According to Section 3(26) of General Clause Act, Immovable property shall include land benefits to arise out of land and things attached to earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth.

The definition of Immoveable property as given in General clause Act 1897 is also not comprehensive. However, merging the above definitions, immovable property can be summed as-

• (a) Land
• (b) Benefits to arise out of land
• (c) Things attached to the earth, except standing timber growing crops and grass
  • ✓ Land Land means determinate portion of earth's surface (For example- lake, mountains etc.) and objects beneath the surface like Mines etc. or all other objects placed by human agency on or under the surface with intention of permanent annexation in order to become a part of the land.
  • ✓ Benefits To Arise Out of Land Apart from the property being immovable from the physical point of view very benefit arising out of it and every interest in such property is also regarded as immoveable property. The Right to receive future rent, Right to take minerals, Right collect lac from Jungle, fish from pond are examples of benefits arising out of land.
  • ✓ Things Attached To Earth
    Things attached to earth includes-
    • • Thing rooted in the earth
    • • Things embedded in the earth
    • • Things attached to what is so embedded
    • • Chattels attaches to earth or Building

To sum up, it can be said that everything attached to the earth with the intention of permanently fixing the same comes under the purview of immovable property. Apart from this, everything else falls into the category of movable property.

Answer:- The following are the differences between Shia Sect of Schools and Sunni Sect of Schools -

Answer:- Section 4 of the Limitation Act provides:

"Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court reopens."

Explanation added to Section 4 of the Act states that:
"A court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this Section if during any part of its normal hours it remains closed on that day."

For Example, if a Court reopens on 1st January and the time for filing the appeal expires on 31 st December (the day on which the Court remains closed) then the appeal can be preferred on the 1 st of January when the Court reopens.

In Maqbool Ahmed v. Omkar Pratap Singh, AIR 1935, it was held that Section 4 of the Limitation Act merely permits the filing of the suit etc. on the date beyond the period of the limitation i.e. where the period of limitation expires on the day when the Court is closed, then in such case, an application may be made on the day when the court re-opens.

Thus, Section 4 of the Act does not extend the period of the limitation. Section 4 merely embodies a rule of elementary justice that if the time allowed by statute to do an act or to take a proceeding expires on a day when the court is closed, it may be done on the next sitting of the Court.

Answer:- The Risk prima facie passes with property is the general rule of Contract of Sale as incorporated under Section 26 of Sales of Goods Act which provides that:

Unless otherwise agreed the goods remain at the selles risk until the property therein is transferred to buyer but when the property therein is transferred to buyer, the goods are at the risk of buyer whether delivery has been made or not.

Provided that where delivery has been delayed through the fault of either buyer or seller the goods are at the risk of party in default as regard any loss which might not have occurred but for such fault.

Provided also that nothing in this Section shall affect duties or liabilities of either seller or buyer as bailee of goods of other party.

Thus, in case of either contract of sale or an agreement to sell after the parties have entered into contract, whoever is the owner of goods, the goods shall be at his risk, he may not be in possession of or delivery of goods may not be made to him.

The rule ‘Risk prima facie follows with property’ has the following exceptions-

• • If parties have decided contrary
• • If delivery of goods is delayed through fault of either party
• • If goods are in possession of either party as Bailee

Answer:- An Attestation means witnessing of execution of deed such as Will, Mortgage, Gift or sale etc. In case of attestation, it is necessary to prove that the executant of deed signed in presence of attesting witnesses and witnesses signed the deed in presence of the executant. Section 3 of the Transfer of the Property Act defines the term attested “in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction on the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement, of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant, but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no form of attestation shall be necessary.”

In Kumar Harish Chandera Singh Deo v. Bansidhar Mohanty and Others, AIR 1965, it was observed that the object of the attestation is to protect the executant from being required to execute a document by the other party there to by force, fraud or undue influence.

In Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. H. Venkata Sastri, 1969, the Supreme Court observed that to attest is to hear witness to a fact. For attestation it is essential that witness should have put his signature "animo attestendi" that is for the purpose of attesting that he has seen the executant sign or has received from him a personal acknowledgement of his signature. If a person puts his signature on the document for some other purpose for example to clarify that he is a scribe or identifier or a registering officer, he is not an attesting witness.

In order to constitute valid attestation, the following essentials are required:-

• 1. There must be two attesting witness
• 2. Each of them must have seen the executant sign or fix his mark to the instrument
• 3. Each of the two attesting witness must have signed the instrument in the presence of the executant
• 4. The attestation can only take place after the execution of the legal instrument is ready for it to be a valid one
• 5. No particular form of attestation is necessary
• 6. An attestor should be sui generis, i.e., capable of entering into contract

Answer:- Dower is anything whether money or other property which the wife is entitled to get from her husband in consideration of entering into marriage contract. According to Muslim Law, Marriage is a civil contract and dower is necessary result of it being a part of the consideration of her agreement to become her husband's wife by consummating the marriage.

According to Amir Ali, “Dower is a consideration for his wife's sole and exclusive use and benefit.”

According to Wilson, “Dower is a consideration for the surrender or person by the wife.”

Thus, Dower is a sum of money paid by husband to his wife in consideration of marriage at the time of marriage, before or after the marriage.

The dower may be classified into:-

• 1. Specified Dower
  Specified Dower is a fixed Dower. It is paid by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage, before or after the marriage. In Hanifi school of Muslim law, 10 drihams is fixed for Dower whereas in Maliki school of Muslim law, 3 drihams is fixed for Dower. Specified Dower is also known as Mahr- i- mussama.
  
  It is important to note that the Shia law does not fix any minimum amount for dower.
  
  The Specified Dower is further classified into-
  • a. Prompt Dower Prompt Dower is paid immediately after the marriage.
  • b. Deferred Dower Deferred Dower is paid after happening of a particular event like after divorce, death of husband, adultery, cruelty, matrimonial offences etc.
• 2. Customary or Proper dower
  When the amount of the dower has not been settled, or even when the marriage has been contracted on an express stipulation that the wife shall not claim any dower, she is entitled to proper or customary dower. It is also termed dower of her equals.
  The following are the basis on which the customary dower is determined-
  • • The personal qualification of the wife. Everything is considered from her beauty to intelligence.
  • • The social status of the wife’s father and family background is considered.
  • • The amount of Dower given to her family females is considered.
  • • The economic and social status of the husband is also taken into consideration.
  • • The other factors, such as present circumstances and family situations at the time of determining Dower.

Under Shia Law, the Proper Dower should not exceed 500 dirhams.

Answer:- Sedition was previously provided in section 124A of the Indian Penal, 1860 which was first introduced in the year 1870 by English jurist James Stephen. But after the introduction of the new Criminal Law i.e. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a new offence including “acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India” under Section 152 has been added to the Act.

Earlier, the offence of sedition was dealt under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. According to Section 124A, in order to attract the offence of Sedition the following elements must exists-

• • Words, written or spoken, or any physical representations or signs communicated to the people.
• • Such words or actions incite or attempt to incite disaffection, hatred, or contempt among the people
• • Such feelings of disaffection, hatred, or contempt towards the government established by law
• • This leads to public unrest and violence

The punishment under Section 124A of the IPC ranges from imprisonment up to three years to a life term, to which a fine may be added.

On the other hand, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Sedition has been replaced by a new offence defined under Section 152. According to Section 152 of BNS, “Whoever,purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial means, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 152 of BNS, places higher priority in safeguarding national interests and acknowledging the threats to sovereignty extend beyond dissent against ruling authorities. While Section 124A of the IPC, laid emphasis on protection of the government from disaffection. Both Section 152 of BNS and Section 124A of IPC, protects legitimate dissent expressed through lawful means.

Section 124 A of IPC was introduced by the British intending to punish any criticism against them whereas the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita aims at serving justice and not suppression and punishment.

The minimum punishment under Section 152 of BNS is enhanced to seven years as opposed to three years under Section 124A. Further, the offence is no longer punishable with only fine as was the offence of sedition but with both fine and imprisonment.

Thus, it can be concluded that the new Sedition law under Section 152 of BNS creates a delicate balance by ensuring the protection of individual freedoms while tackling serious threats to the nation effectively.

Answer:- Section 5 of Limitation Act provides that Any appeal or any application other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had Sufficient Cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

It means that any appeal or application (other than one made under Order XXI of C.P.C.) may be admitted after prescribed period if appellant or applicant as the case may be shows Sufficient Cause for not preferring appeal or making application within the prescribed period. The court has a discretion to admit or refuse the proceeding even if sufficient cause is shown.

Explanation to Section 5 states that The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgement of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this Section.”

In Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, the Court held that a party seeking condonation of delay must show that they were acting bona fide and had taken all possible measures within their power and did not approach the court with any unnecessary delay.

Recently, in Sabarmati Gas Limited v. Shah Alloys Limited (2023), the Supreme Court observed that Sufficient Cause is the cause for which a party could not be blamed.

Examples of sufficient cause-

• Imprisonment of the party or serious illness
• Mistake of law
• Delay in obtaining the certified copies, etc.

In Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji AIR 1987, the Supreme Court laid down following principles for dealing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:

• ✓ Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
• ✓ Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
• ✓ Everyday's delay must be explained.
• ✓ When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done of a non-deliberate delay.
• ✓ There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account culpable negligence or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay.
• ✓ It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and it is expected to do so.

It was pointed out that the Courts should adopt liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay keeping in view the above principles. Hence, it can be concluded that the remedy provided under the Limitations Act to condone the delay where a sufficient cause has been provided for the same should be construed liberally in order to meet the ends of justice.

Answer:- The following are the differences between the Contract of Indemnity and Contract of Guarantee-

• • There are two parties in contract of indemnity i.e. indemnifier and indemnity holder whereas in a contract of guarantee, there are three parties i.e. surety, principal debtor and creditor.
• • A Contract of indemnity consists of one contract whereby an indemnifier promises to indemnify the indemnity-holder for certain loss whereas in Contract of Guarantee, there are three contracts between parties inter-se.
  • 1. Between principal debtor and creditor in respect of debt or obligation to be discharged by principal debtor
  • 2. Surety undertakes to perform same obligation if principal debtor fails to perform
  • 3. Between principal debtor and surety whereby principal debtor is bound to indemnify the surety for payment of debt or discharge of obligation, made by surety under the contract of guarantee
• • A contract of indemnity is to protect the promisee against some loss whereas an object of contract of guarantee is to provide additional security to the creditor for debt or liability.

Answer:- Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 lays down essential conditions for a Marriage under Hindu Marriage Act. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus if the following conditions are fulfilled which are as follows-

• (i) Neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage
• (ii) At the time of marriage neither party is-
• (a) Incapable of giving valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind
• (b) Though capable of giving valid consent but has been suffering from mental disorder of such kind or to such extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children
• (c) Has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity
• (iii) The bridegroom has completed the age of twenty one years and the bride, the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage
• (iv) The parties are not within the degree of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two
• (v) The parties are not sapindas of each other unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two.

Thus, Section 5 prescribes the essential requisites for a Hindu Marriage such as –

• • Monogamy
• • Mental capacity of parties
• • Age of the parties
• • Degrees of prohibited relationship
• • Sapinda relationship

It is important to note that these conditions of marriage are supplemented by certain ceremonies as provided under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Answer:- The following are the key features which are introduced by the new Bhartiye Nyaya Sanhita-

• 1. Section 2 of the BNS, 2023
  It includes definitions of child and transgender. The terms Electronic and digital records have been included in the definition of document to demonstrate their importance. The definition of ‘movable property’ has also been revised i.e. “includes property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.”
• 2. Section 48 of the BNS, 2023
  Introduced a new provision- Abetment outside India for offence in India. It means that any individual who conspire to carry out an offence in India while sitting in another country can be held liable under BNS.
• 3. Section 69 of the BNS
  Introduced a new offence- sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc. It states that any individual by-
  • ✔️ false promise of marriage
  • ✔️ employment or
  • ✔️ promotion engages in sexual intercourse
  Will be punished with imprisonment for a term extending to 10 years and will be liable to fine.
• 4. Elimination of Age based distinction for punishment in Gang rape cases of a Minor girl
  The introduction of the new BNS law eliminated the age-based distinction for punishment in gang rape cases of a minor girl. It mandates life imprisonment of the death penalty for the crime of gang rape of a woman below 18 years of age Section 70(2).
• 5. Mob Lynching
  A new provision has been introduced in the BNS which deals with the offence of mob lynching where under Section 103(2) it is provided that when a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground each member of such group shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
• 6. Punishment for Causing Death by Negligence
  The BNS, 2023, has modified the punishment for causing death by negligence from 2 years to 5 five years imprisonment under Section 106 (i). Moreover, it also highlighted that if such an act is done by a registered medical practitioner he/she should be punished with imprisonment for a term extending to 2 years and a fine.
• 7. Organized Crimes
  Section 111 of the BNS, 2023, introduced deterrent punishments for organized crime such as land grabbing, kidnapping, contract killing, cybercrime, extortion, trafficking of persons or goods or weapons or drugs, and financial scams. It states that anyone who attempts or commits an organized crime will be punished with life imprisonment or death and a Rs. 10 Lakhs fine in case the offence results in the death of any individual and for others the punishment will be less than 5 years extending to life imprisonment and a fine of at least 5 lakh rupees.
• 8. Terrorist Acts
  S.113 of BNS introduced a new provision which defines a terrorist act and lays down the punishments for the commission of the same, for conspiring/ attempting to commit/advocating/abetting/advising/inciting or knowingly facilitating the commission, for organizing camp to train terrorist or recruiting persons for committing such acts, for being a member of an organization involved, for harbouring or concealing a terrorist, for possessing proceeds of such acts.
• 9. Elimination of Sedition
  The BNS of 2023 eliminated the Section related to Sedition (specifically Section 124A of the IPC) upholding the constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression. It introduced a new provision, Section 152 where any person who conducted an act endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India will be punished with life imprisonment or imprisonment extending to 7 years and a fine.
• 10. Snatching
  Section 304 of the BNS 2023 has also introduced a new offence of ‘Snatching’ which states that theft is snatching “if in order to commit theft the offender suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes or secures or grabs or takes away from any person or from his possession any movable property”.

Thus, the BNS marks a step forward toward a modernized legal framework, it not only amends existing Indian Penal Code but also introduces various new provisions that may improve efficiency, fairness, and transparency in the legal process.

Answer:- Section 22 of Indian Evidence Act provides that Oral admissions as to contents of a document are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained or unless genuineness of document produced is in question.

Section 22 of Act contemplates basic principle of law of evidence that when there has been a document, nobody can be permitted to prove oral admission about the contents of that document. For example-

A executed a deed of mortgage in favour of T. T files a suit for possession of property mortgagee on the basis of that mortgage. During the trial, A denied the execution of mortgage. Now in this case, T cannot prove by oral evidence that he had admitted before some persons that he had mortgaged the property to him. T can prove the execution of mortgage and can get possession of property only when he files that deed of mortgage in court and proves it.

It is important to note that there are two exceptions to Section 22-

• (a) When a person is entitled to give secondary evidence of contents of some documents he will be entitled to rely on oral admission
• (b) Under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence of contents of document can be given when original is lost or it is in possession of opposite party

Answer:- The general Rule is that all persons interested in the suit should be joined as party to it so that matter involved in it may finally and completely be adjudicated upon and fresh litigation over the same matter may be avoided. Order I Rule VIII of Civil Procedure Code is an exception to above said general rule. It provides that when there are number of persons commonly interested in a suit, one or more of them can with the leave or upon the direction of court, sue or be sued on behalf of themselves and other. It is important to Plaintiff in representative suit need not to obtain previous consent of persons whom he represents.

A Representative Suit may be defined as suit filed by or against one or more persons on behalf of themselves and others having same interest in the suit.

Order I Rule VIII of Civil Procedure Code has been enacted in order to save time and expense to ensure that a single comprehensive trial of question in which numerous persons are interested and also to avoid harassment to parties by multiplicity of suits.

However, Order I Rule VIII of Civil Procedure Code contains only enabling provisions and does not compel any one to represent many. Order I Rule VIII also does not vest a right of suit in a person, if he by himself has no right to sue. It is necessary to bring the case within the provisions of Order I Rule VIII all the members of a class should have common interest in a subject matter and a common grievance and relief should in its nature be beneficial to all.

The following conditions must exist for application of Order I Rule VIII of Civil Procedure Code-

• • The parties must be numerous
• • They must have same or common interest in suit
• • Permission must have been granted or direction must have been given by the court
• • Notice must have been issued to parties whom it proposed to represent in the suit

Answer:- Section 125 of Indian Contract Act is relevant which provides indemnity holder can bring an action against indemnifier to recover damages and costs etc. The Indemnity holder acting within the scope of his authority has following rights-

• • An indemnity-holder is entitled to claim all damages which he may have been compelled to pay
• • An indemnity-holder is entitled to recover all costs reasonably incurred in resisting or reducing or ascertaining the claim. But the party indemnified cannot recover costs when he has not acted as a prudent man in defending the action against him or has not been authorised by the indemnifier to defend the suit or where the costs incurred have been unreasonable in amount
• • An indemnity-holder can compromise a claim on the best terms he can and then bring an action on the contract of indemnity

Answer:- The following are the differences between limitation and laches-

• 1. In case of limitation, the knowledge of the ignorance of the plaintiff with respect to his right is deemed immaterial while the knowledge of the plaintiff about right if proved defeats the claim due to laches. The term laches means, negligence or slackness. The doctrine of laches is based on the principle that `delay defeats equity.
  In Roop Chand v. Madan Mohan, 1960, it was observed that the basis of doctrine of limitation is public policy whereas the basis of the doctrine of laches is `equity. Laches like limitation no doubt deprive plaintiff of his remedy but it depends upon general principles of justice and fair play while limitation depends upon express law.
• 2. Limitation prescribes a period of time within which a suit must be filed in the court, whereas period time is not fixed for laches. In case of laches, it is the duty of a court to see
  • I. Whether the evidences of the case have been lost or destroyed due to the delay caused by plaintiff
  • II. Whether the plaintiff caused unreasonable delay
  • III. Whether the defendant has been induced by the plaintiff by causing delay or commission to alter his position or to incur an expense.

  The doctrine of laches is applied in India in the following cases-

  • . Cases relating to the Specific Relief Act
  • . Cases of temporary injunction
  • . Cases of interlocutory orders
  • . Cases relating to marriage and divorce
  • . Cases relating to limitation
• 3. The law of limitation is based on public policy and general utility while laches is based on equity.
• 4. The plea of limitation is raised by the defendant against the plaintiff whereas the plea of laches can be raised against either i.e. plaintiff or defendant.

Answer:- Section 73 of Indian Penal Code deals with Solitary Confinement. Section 73 of the Indian Penal Code provides -

"Whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under this code, the court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment, the court may by its sentence, order that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of imprisonment to which he is sentenced not exceeding three months in the whole, according to following scale, that is to say -

• A time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six months
• A time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed six months and shall not exceed one year;
• A time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one year."

In Ramanjulu Naidu v. State, 1947, it was observed that solitary confinement should not be ordered unless there are special features appearing in evidence such as extreme violence or brutality in the commission of offence.

Section 74 of the Indian Penal Code provides limit of solitary confinement-

"In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed fourteen days at a time with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of no less duration than such periods, and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months, the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole imprisonment awarded with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods."

Thus, it can be concluded that Solitary confinement is a complete isolation of prisoner from the society. Section 73 and 74 of the Indian Penal Code gives lawful recognition to solitary confinement and puts certain limits due to its severe character.

Answer:- Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act makes the constituent incidents of a transaction relevant, if a part of the transaction is a fact in issue. These constituent incidents may be –

• • Acts
• • declarations
• • other facts accompanying or explaining the transaction

In the present case, each delivery to the intermediate persons successively is a part of the same transaction. (Illustration (d) of Section 6 of the Act)

Therefore, it is relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Answer:- Section 76 of Indian Penal Code is a well-established from a Common law maxim ignoratia facit excusat ignoratia juris non excusat which means in criminal law mistake of fact is a good defence while mistake of law is no defence. Every man is presumed to know law. The reason why ignorance of law is never a defence is that if it were a defence, it would screen offenders and lead to endless complications.

Section 76 lays down:
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or who by reason of mistake of fact and not by reason of mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be bound by law to do it.

Section 79 of Indian Penal Code provides:
Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justify by law or who by reason of mistake of fact and not by reason of mistake of law, in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, doing it.

In R. v. Tolson, it was observed Honest and reasonable mistake stands on the same footing as absence of reasoning faculty as in infancy. In this case, Accused had gone through the ceremony of marriage within seven years after she had been deserted by her husband. She believed in good faith and on reasonable grounds that her husband was dead. It was held that a bonafide belief on reasonable grounds in the death of the husband at the time of second marriage afforded a good defence to the charge of bigamy.

Similarly, in Chiranji v. State, A father kills his own son believing in good faith, him to be a tiger. It was observed that a hunter mistakes a man for an animal and fires, here through a mistake a man intending to do a lawful act, has done that which is unlawful. There has not been that conjunction between his act and his will, which is necessary to form a criminal act. If there was no mens rea, there was a mistake. Therefore, it may be no crime.

Answer:- Section 23 of Indian Contract Act provides that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless the Court regards it an immoral or opposed to public policy.

The term Public Policy cannot be defined with any degree of precision. The certain class of acts are said to be against public policy or against the policy of law when the law refuses to enforce or recognise them on the ground that they have mischievous tendency so as to be injurious to the interest of State of public. Giving or agreeing to give bribe for securing public office is against public policy. Therefore, in case in hand agreement between A and B is void on the ground of being against public policy under Section 23 of the Act

Thus, A cannot recover Rs. 1,000 from B.

Answer:- Section 304A of Indian Penal Code provides that Whoever causes the death of any person, by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or both.

In order to apply Section 304 A the following conditions must be fulfilled-

• • the death of any person must have been caused by accused by doing any rash and negligent act. In other words there must be proof that the rash and negligent act of accused was the proximate cause of the death.
• • There must be direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash and negligent act of the accused.

In the case in hand, the accused drove the bus on a kacha road at a high speed. Further, the iron sheets were placed on the top of the bus without taking any precaution to avoid their fall. Therefore, driving the bus at a high speed on such a path and not taking of precaution while placing iron sheets on the top of the bus amount to criminal rashness and negligence. B died due to injuries received by him on being hit on his head with the iron sheets. Therefore, there is a direct nexus between the death of B and the rash and negligent act of A. Hence, A is guilty under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

Answer:- Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that “Every person competent to contract and entitled to transferable property or authorized to dispose of transferable property not his own, is competent to transfer such property either wholly or in part and either absolutely or conditionally, in the circumstances, to the extent and in the manner, allowed prescribed by any laws for the time being in force.”

In Balai Chandra Mondal v. Indu Rekha Devi, 1973, it was observed that a person's conduct in collecting rents and managing an estate of the landlord does not empower him to transfer the land as the landlord's agent.

Section 7 of the Act does not deal with the question as to who can be transferee of property. Section 6(b) provides that no transfer can be made to a person legally disqualified to be transferee. According to that provision, a minor is not disqualified to be transferee although a contract with a minor is void. Under Section 7 there is nothing which prevents a person not competent to contract from being transferee of property. It means that if a minor enter into contract through guardian or next friend he can be purchaser or mortgagee, otherwise not.

Answer:- Section 146 of Indian Penal Code defines offence of Rioting as Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.

Section 159 has defined offence Affray as When two or more persons by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to commit any affray.

The following are the differences between Riot and Affray-

• (1) An affray cannot be committed in a private place. But it is to be noted that a riot may take place anywhere, i.e., both at a public and a private place
• (2) An affray can be committed by two or more persons but a riot can be committed by at least five persons
• (3) Rioters are those who first constitute an unlawful assembly but it is not so in case of an affray
• (4) The punishment awarded in the case of riot is imprisonment for two years but in the case of an affray it is one month or fine up to Rs. 100 or both

Answer:- The general rule of law of contract is that an agreement without consideration is void.Section 25 of Indian Contract Act provides that:

An agreement made without consideration is void unless

• (1) It is expressed in writing and registered under the law for the time being in force for the registration of documents and is made on account of natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other or unless
• (2) It is a promise to compensate, wholly or in part, a person who has already voluntarily done something which the promisor was legally compellable to do or unless
• (3) It is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorised in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits.

In any of these cases, such an agreement is a contract.

In the case in hand, A was treated during his illness by his friend B. Further, B has refused to accept any payment for such professional services rendered by him to A. In other words, this act of B was voluntary and gratuitous. It is also important to note that after treatment, A never made any promise to compensate B within the meaning of Section 23(2) of the Act. However, A promised B's son X, to pay him Rs. 1,000. For this promise, there was no consideration at all. Therefore, the promise with X being without consideration does not create any legal obligation, and is void.

Answer:- Section 4 of Indian Partnership Act defines `Partnership as:

Partnership is a relation between persons who have agreed to share profits of the business to be carried on by all or any of them acting for all.

Section 4 makes it clear that the following essentials must exist to form partnership-

• (a) There must be an agreement
• (b) Agreement must be to share profits of the business
• (c) Business must be carried on by all or any of them acting for all

It is to be noted that an agreement of sharing profits of the business is one of essential element of partnership. Moreover Section 6 of Partnership Act says

In determining whether a group of persons is or is not a firm or whether a person is or is not partner in a firm, regard shall be had to real relation between the parties as shown by all relevant facts taken together.

Explanation II to Section 6 makes it clear that receipt by a person of share of profit as remuneration, does not of itself make the receiver a partner in the firm.

In the case in hand, A has been shown a partner in the partnership deed and 'A' manages the business of firm and paid Rs. 2000 P.M. However, A shall have no share in profits of firm. The evidence taken together shows that when he is not entitled to share profits of the firm, he cannot be said to be partner in the firm because sharing profits of the firm is one of the essential condition for partnership relation. A at the most can be called Manager of business of the firm taking salary of Rs. 2000/-.

Therefore, A's plea that he is not partner and as such not liable for losses is sustainable.

Answer:- Section 301 of Indian Penal Code provides that if a person by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death commits culpable homicide by causing death of any person whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause.

Section 301 I.P.C. embodies the doctrine of transfer of malice or transmigration of motive. The basic idea behind the provision is that where an act is in itself criminal the doing of the act is an offence irrespective of the individuality of the person harmed.

In Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991, accused when aims at one and kills another, he would be punishable for murder under the doctrine of transfer of malice as embodied in Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code.

Therefore in problem in hand, A is guilty of murder.

Answer:- Every Contract create certain right in favour of one party to it and certain obligation upon other party and each party is to perform this part of obligation. When each party fulfils his promise, the contract is said to be discharged.

• 1. By Performance As stated above when each party to contract perform its part of promise, then contract is discharged and each party is satisfied. Section 37 and 38 of Indian Contract Act lays down the rules as to performance of contract.
• 2. By Breach of Contract When a party having duty to perform a contract fails to do that or does an act by which performance of contract by him becomes impossible or when he refuses to perform the contract, it is a breach of contract. When one party to contract commits breach of contract other party is discharged from performing his part of promise under the contract and he also becomes entitled to sue the party committing breach of contract for damages for loss arisen due to breach of contract. Breach of contract may be-
  • • Actual i.e. refusal to performance of contract on date of performance
  • • Anticipatory i.e. refusal of performance of contract even before due date of performance
• 3. Discharge by Impossibility of Performance When the performance of contract become impossible because of certain reasons beyond the control of either party to contract then each party to it, stands discharged from performing their part of promise under the contract. Section 56 of Indian Contract Act deals with impossibility of performance of Contract which is also known as Doctrine of frustration.
  As per section 56 there can be two kind of impossibility-
  • • Impossibility existing at the time of making of contract
  • • Impossibility of performance which become so, after contract was entered into, due to some supervening event.
• 4. By Waiver and Novation etc. Parties create contract by their agreement and in the same way, by their agreement, the parties may bring a contract to an end. This type of ending of the contracts is known as the discharge of the contract by agreement.
  The discharge of the contract by agreement may be in any one of the following ways-
  • (a) By Waiver
  • (b) By Novation
  • (c) By alteration in terms of contract

Answer:- The following are the differences between Limitation and Acquiescence-

• 1. Limitation indicates towards the provision against which a suit cannot be filed in a court after the expiry of the prescribed time. Acquiescence refers to a position in which an objection is not raised by person against an act done by another person having a right to do so, provided that it is not inconsistent with the right of the former.
• 2. The right of a person to file a suit or initiate a proceeding is extinguished after the expiry of period of time whereas Acquiescence is most wide in comparison to that because a consent is involved in it.
• 3. The acquiescence can either be direct or indirect but it is not so in the case of limitation.
• 4. The acquiescence is based on knowledge and conduct of the concerning party while it is not so in case of limitation.
• 5. When acquiescence is proved a person who did so loses his right to file a suit in the court irrespective of the fact that the time for filing a suit has since expired or not.

Answer:- Section 4 of the Partnership Act defines Partnership as A relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all.

• • An agreement between the persons who want to be partners must exists
• • The purpose of creating partnership should be carrying of business
• • The main motive for creation of partnership should be sharing profits
• • The business of the firm should be carried on by all of them or any of them acting for all i.e. mutual agency

In determining whether a group of persons is or is not a firm or whether a person is or is not a partner in a firm, regard shall be had to real relation between the parties as shown by all relevant facts taken together.

Explanation 1 to Section 6 makes it clear that The sharing of profits or of gross returns arising from property by persons holding a joint or common interest in that property does not by itself make such persons partners.

In the given problem, A, B, C and D different motor owners though agreed to ply their respective motors between Delhi to Agra on fixed fare and to divide the proceeds equally but are not partners in view of Explanation 1 of Section 6.

Moreover, A, B, C and D do not possess all elements which are necessary to create partnership. Though they might have agreed to divide profits equally but they have not apparently agreed to carry business by all or any one of them acting for all. Thus, trade combination does not amount to partnership. Therefore, A, B, C and D are not partners.

Answer:- According to Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, “Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record with intent cause damages or injury to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.”

• (1) The making of a false document or part of it
• (2) Such making should be with intent to-
  • • cause damage or injury to the public or to any person
  • • support any claim to title
  • • cause any person to part with property
  • • enter into any express or implied contract
  • • commit fraud or that fraud may be committed

A signs his own name to a bill of exchange with an aim that it may be believed that another person of the same name drew the bill. A has committed forgery.

The offence of forgery has something to do with the making of a document. It is important to note that the making of a document is not an offence in itself. It will amount to an offence if the document or any part thereof is false. In other words, facts are contrary to what they appear in such writing or inscription. A false document must be coupled with a criminal intent to constitute the offence i.e. intent of a dishonest and fraudulent character.

Thus, it can be concluded that a criminal intention is the most important essential in proving an act of a forgery.

Answer:- A wager means a bet, the subject matter of the bet may be anything. It is a game of chance by which one will either gain or lose which is wholly dependent upon some future uncertain event.

According to Justice Hawkins - A wagering contract is one by which two persons, professing to hold opposite views touching the issue of future uncertain event, mutually agree that, dependent on the determination of that even, one shall win from the other and that other shall pay or hand over to him, a sum of money or other stakes, neither of the contracting parties have any other interest in that contract that the sum or stake so won or lost, there being no other real consideration for making of such contract by either of the parties. It is essential to a wagering contract that each party may, under it, either win or lose, whether he will win or lose being dependent on the issue of the event, and therefore, remaining uncertain until that issue is known. If either of the parties may win but cannot lose, or may lose but cannot win, it is not a wagering contract

“Agreement by way of wager, are void and no suit shall be brought, for recovering anything alleged to be won on any wager, or entrusted to any person to abide by the result of any game or other uncertain event on which any wager is made.”

• (1) Opposite views about an uncertain event The first important essential is that the wagering agreement is that performance of it, depends upon an uncertain future event regarding which one party to it has one view and other party has opposite view.
  
  In Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball (1892) it was observed that parties should have opposite views touching the issue of a future uncertain even . Such opposite views could be in respect of past or present fact or event, only thing needed is that there should be uncertainty in the minds of parties about the determination of the event one way or other.
• (2) Chances of gain or loss to the parties Another important essential of wager agreement is that parties to it should be at the risk of winning or losing money or money worth at the determination of some uncertain future event. Where there are no such chances of gain or loss, there is no wager.
• (3) No other interest in the event except the amount of bet In wagering contract, neither of the contracting parties have any other interest in that contract than the sum nor stake he will so win or lose and there is no other real consideration for the making of such contract by either of the parties.

Answer:- Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that suits relating to immovable property are to be instituted where the subject-matter is situated. Its proviso also provides that if the relief sought can be entirely obtained through the personal obedience of the defendant, the suit may be instituted either in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business, or personally woks for gain. Proviso to Section 16 C.P.C. will not be attracted in present case. X, Y and Z are joints owners, X lives in Bombay, Y lives in Delhi and Z lives at Jaipur. Therefore, in the case in hand suit for partition of property can be filed at Jaipur, i.e. where the suit property is situated.

Answer:- Section 120A of Indian Penal Code defines Criminal Conspiracy as:
When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done-

• • an illegal act
• • an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
The following are the essentials of Criminal Conspiracy-

• (1) There must be an agreement between two or more persons who are alleged to conspire
• (2) The agreement should be to do, or cause to be done-
  • • an illegal act
  • • an act which is though not illegal by illegal means

In accordance with the proviso, the distinction is drawn between an agreement to commit an offence and an agreement of which either object or means employed are illegal but does not constitute the offence. In case of an agreement to commit offence mere agreement is sufficient but in case of an agreement to do an act which would not amount to an offence, some overt act besides the agreement must be proved to establish the charge of criminal conspiracy.

In the given problem, A and B reached to an agreement to commit the murder of C, which is offence, so in this case, it is sufficient to prove that A and B made agreement to commit offence of murder of C, even though no overt act subsequently done by either A or B. Offence of criminal conspiracy is committed.

Answer:- A firm may be dissolved in the following ways:

• 1. Dissolution by agreement (Section 40) A firm may be dissolved either:
  • • With the consent of all the partners
  • • In accordance with a contract between the partners
  As partners can create partnership by making a contract as between themselves, they are also similarly free to end this relationship and thereby dissolve the firm by their mutual consent. When all the partners so agree they may dissolve the firm at any time they like.
• 2. Compulsory dissolution (Section 41) Section 41 mentions certain events on the happening of which there is compulsory dissolution of the firm. According to Section 41, Compulsory dissolution occurs under following circumstances:
  • • When all the partners or all except one are adjudicated insolvent, the firm is compulsorily dissolved.
  • • If the business of the firm though lawful when the firm came into existence, subsequently becomes unlawful there has to be dissolution of the firm.
  If the firm was carrying on more than one adventures or undertakings the illegality of one or more of them shall not of itself result in the dissolution of the firm in respect of those adventures or undertakings which are still lawful. There is also compulsory dissolution of the firm if some event happens because of which it becomes unlawful for the partners to continue as partners with each other.
• 3. Dissolution on happening of certain contingencies (Section 42) Section 42 mentions certain contingencies on the happening of which the firm is dissolved unless there is a contract to the contrary. Unlike the dissolution under Section 41, which is compulsory, the dissolution contemplated under Section 42 is not compulsory. Even on the happening of the contingencies mentioned in Section 42, partners may agree that the firm will not be dissolved but the business of the firm will be continued as before. The contingencies mentioned in the section are:
  • • Expiration of the partnership term
  • • Completion of the adventure
  • • Death of a partner
  • • Insolvency of a partner
• 4. Dissolution by notice in partnership at will (Section 43) When the partnership is at will as defined in Section 7, the partners are not bound to remain as partners or continue the partnership for any fixed period. According to Section 43 such a firm may be dissolved by any partner giving notice in writing to all the other partners of his intention to dissolve the firm. The notice must clearly and in unambiguous terms indicate the intention of the partner giving notice to dissolve the firm. Dissolution by a notice under this section will be valid even though one of the partners to whom the notice is given is insane.
• 5. Dissolution by the Court Section 44 mentions certain grounds on which a suit can be filed for the dissolution of a firm. The provision is as follows: At the suit of a partner, the Court may dissolve a firm on any of the following grounds namely
  • (a) That a partner has become of unsound mind in which case the suit may be brought as well by the next friend of the partner who has become of unsound mind as by any other partner
  • (b) That a partner, other than the partner suing, has become in any way permanently incapable of performing his duties as partner
  • (c) that a partner, other than the partner suing, is guilty of conduct which is likely to affect prejudicially the carrying on of the business, regard being had to the nature of the business
  • (d) That a partner, other than the partner suing, wilfully or persistently commits breach of agreement relating to the management of the affairs of the firm or the conduct of its business, or otherwise so conducts himself in matters relating to the business that it is not reasonably practicable for the other partners to carry on the business in partnership with him
  • (e) That a partner, other than the partner suing, has in any way transferred the whole of his interest in the firm to a third party, or has allowed his share to be charged under the provisions of Rule 49 of Order XXI of the First Schedule to the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 or has allowed it to be sold in the recovery of arrears of land revenue or of any dues recoverable as arrears of land revenue due by the partner
  • (f) That the business of the firm cannot be carried on save at a loss
  • (g) On any other ground which renders it just and equitable that the firm should be dissolved

Answer:- Sections 7 and 8 of Sales of Goods Act deals with the effect of goods being perished in case of contract of sale or in case of agreement to sell.

"Where there is a contract for sale of specified goods the contract is void if the goods without the knowledge of the seller have, at the time when the contract was made, perished or become so damaged as no longer to answer to their description in the contract."

"Where there is an agreement to sell specific goods and subsequently the goods without any fault on the part of the seller or buyer perishes or becomes so damaged as no longer to answer to their description in the agreement before the risk passes to the buyer the agreement is thereby avoided."

So, Section 8 of Act is applicable when the goods to be sold are specific and there is merely an agreement to sell.

The question involved in the present case is that whether agreement to sell the grain that may be produced on his farm, is specific or unascertained?

In Howell v. Coupland (1876), the Department in the month of March agreed to sell to plaintiff 200 tons of potatoes, grown in land belonging to Defendant at particular price and to be delivered in the month of October. Defendant had 68 acres of land which was sown, but without fault on the part of the defendant, in August, the crop was attacked by the potato disease and defendant could not deliver the whole quantity of product. In this case it was observed that & This is not like the case of contract to deliver so many goods of particular kind, where no specific goods are sold. Here, there was an agreement to sell and buy particular crop to be grown on specific land. It is an agreement to sell specific things and therefore, neither party is liable, if the performance becomes impossible.

Thus, it can be concluded that in accordance with Section 8 of the Sales of Goods Act, the agreement is void and A has to suffer the loss.

Answer:- Section 460 Cr.P.C. deals with irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings. Section 460 states & If any Magistrate not empowered by law to do any of the following things, namely,

• (a) to issue a search-warrant under Section 94
• (b) to order, under Section 155, the police to investigate an offence
• (c) to hold an inquest under Section 176
• (d) to issue process under Section 187, for the apprehension of a person within his local jurisdiction who has committed an offence outside the limits of such jurisdiction
• (e) to take cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 190
• (f) to make over a case under Sub-section (2) of Section 192
• (g) to tender a pardon under Section 306
• (h) to recall a case and try it himself under Section 410
• (i) to sell property under Section 458 or Section 459, erroneously in good faith does that thing, his proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his not being so empowered.

Answer:- Section 106 of the Indian Penal Code provides that & if in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably 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.

In the case in hand, A was attacked by a mob who attempted 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 when by so firing he harms or kills any of the children.

Answer:- Section 8 of the Evidence Act provides that the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. Explanation 2 to the Section 8 provides that when the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant. Thus, the conduct of the accused soon after the incident plays an important part in determining the guilt of the accused and is a corroborative piece of evidence. The conduct of a person in absconding after the commission of the offence is an evidence to show that he was connected to the offence. It may be clarified that absconding is equally consistent with innocence and guilt.

Illustration (f) to Section 8 of the Act.-

The question is, whether A robbed B?

The facts that, after B was robbed, C said in A's presence - "the police are coming to look for the man who robbed B", and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.

Therefore, in the present case the statement made by X and the conduct of A in running away are relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act.

Answer:- Section 181(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that any offence of being a thug, or murder committed by a thug, of dacoity with murder, of belonging to a gang of dacoits, or of escaping from custody, may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the accused person is found. In the present case, the offence of dacoity was committed at Punjab and the dacoits were arrested at Delhi. Therefore, the offence of dacoity can be inquired into or tried either at Punjab or Delhi.

Answer:- An interpleader suit is a suit in which the real dispute is not between the plaintiff and the defendant but between the defendants only and the plaintiff is not really interested in the subject- matter of the suit. In other words, in an interpleader suit, the defendants interplead, i.e., plead against each other instead of pleading against the plaintiff as in an ordinary suit.
Section 88 of CPC provides that where two or more persons claim adversely to one another the same debt, sum of money or other property, movable or immovable, from another person who does not claim any interest in it except the charges or costs and is ready to pay or deliver it to the rightful claimant, such person may file an interpleader suit.
For Example-
E is in possession of the property claimed by A and D adversely. E does not claim any interest in the property and is ready to deliver it to the rightful owner, he can file an interpleader suit.
The following conditions must be satisfied before an interpleader suit can be instituted -

• • there must be some debt, sum of money or other property movable or immovable in dispute
• • two or more persons must be claiming it adversely to one another
• • the person from whom such debt, money or property is claimed, must not be claiming any interest therein other than the charges and costs and he must be ready to pay or deliver it to the rightful claimant
• • there must be no suit pending in which the rights of the rival claimants can be property decided

Thus, it is clear that an interpleader suit is actually between the defendants. The plaintiff cannot claim any interest in the subject matter of such suit except the charges and the costs as admissible to him under the law.

Answer:- According to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, if the consideration or object of the agreement is not lawful such agreements are void ab initio. Even the agreements of which the object or consideration in part is unlawful, the agreement as a whole is void ab initio as per Section 24 of the Act. Therefore, it is necessary to know as what considerations and objects are lawful and what not. Section 23 specifically lays down the consideration or object of an agreement as lawful unless it is:

• 1. Forbidden by law
  An agreement to do something which is expressly forbidden by law is void. In Brij Mohan v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corp., 1987, an agreement by corporation with private vehicle owner allowing him to operate his vehicles under the permit obtained by State Corporation was held to be void being violative of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
• 2. Defeat the provisions of any law
  If the object or consideration of an agreement is to defeat any provision of law then such agreement is void because such object of any agreement can never be lawful. In Ram Sewak v. Ram Charan, 1982, the parties agreed to carry on business in partnership. Agreement provided that they would conceal some part of their business activity and would not enter certain items in the books of accounts with a view to evade Income tax and sales tax. One of the partners brought an action against others for accounts and recovery of due amount. It was held that such agreement was aimed to defeat the provisions of Tax Laws and thus, cannot be enforced.
• 3. Fraudulent purpose
  If the object of any contract is to defraud some person or to take undue advantage by fraudulent transaction then such contract is void.
• 4. Agreement injurious to person or property
  If the object or consideration of an agreement is to cause an injury to the person or property of another, then such agreement is unlawful and thus, void.
• 5. Immoral or against public policy
  If the consideration or object of an agreement is regarded by the court to be immoral or opposed to public policy, then such agreement is unlawful. Hence, the agreement is void as per Section 23 of the Act.

Thus, in each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.

Answer:- Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code defines theft as-
“Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable 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.”
The following are the essentials of the offence of theft-

• • Dishonest intention to take property;
• • Property should be moveable;
• • The property must be taken out of possession of another person;
• • Property should be taken without the person’s consent;
• • Property should be moved, in order to such taking

For Example-
A finds a ring on a table in Z’s house. The ring belongs to Z as it is in his possession. If A removes that ring without Z’s consent. A commits theft.

In Pyare Lal Bhargava vs. the State of Rajasthan, 1963, it was held that removing of a file from the office and giving it to a third person who is not an employee, for personal profit, constitutes the offence of theft. It is immaterial, for what duration or time period the file was moved. The moment a thing is moved from its place with dishonest intention, out of a person’s possession, without his consent, establishes the offence of theft.

In K. N. Mehera v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC 369, it was held that absence of the person’s consent at the time of moving and the presence of dishonest intention in so taking at the time of moving and the presence of dishonest intention in so taking at the time are essential ingredients of theft.

In the given problem, the accused A, who flew the aeroplane without the permission of authorities has caused loss to the authority due to deprivation or dispossession. Here, the accused A has committed an offence of theft as defined under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code. It is important to note that it is immaterial that he intended to return the aeroplane at later point of time.

Answer:- Section 415 and Section 405 of the Indian Penal code deals with the offences of Cheating and Criminal Breach of trust. Both these offences are committed against the property. The following are the differences between the two-

• 1. Cheating primarily involves fraudulent inducement or performing an act based on false representations or concealment of facts. It focuses on the act of inducing someone through dishonest means. On the other hand, Criminal breach of trust, revolves around the abuse of trust or breach of fiduciary obligations. It occurs when a person, who is entrusted with property or dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts it for their own use or the benefit of someone else.
• 2. Cheating requires fraudulent intent on the part of the offender. They must have the intention to deceive and induce the victim to act upon their false representations. Whereas, in case of Criminal breach of trust, the emphasis is on the dishonest misappropriation or conversion of entrusted property by a person who was in a position of trust.
• 3. Cheating is committed against immovable property only. On the other hand, Criminal breach of trust is committed against movable or immovable property.
• 4. Cheating generally involves causing wrongful gain to the offender or others, or causing wrongful loss to the victim. The gain or loss is a direct result of the fraudulent inducement. On the other hand, Criminal breach of trust primarily entails the misappropriation or conversion of entrusted property, resulting in wrongful loss to the person to whom the property belongs or was entrusted.

Answer:- The following are the secondary sources of Muslim Law-

• 1. Customs
  The Customs are termed as urf in the Muslim law. It was never recognized as a source of law but was considered supplementary. It is important to note that not every custom holds importance in Muslim law.
  The following are the requisites of valid customs under Muslim law are:
  • ✔️ It must be ancient
  • ✔️ It must be territorial
  • ✔️ It must be continuous
  • ✔️ It must not oppose the public policy
  • ✔️ It must not oppose the Quran or Ijma
• 2. Judicial Decisions
  Judicial decisions are the decisions given by the Privy Council, the Supreme Court and the High Courts of India. Judicial decisions acts as precedents for future cases. Judicial decisions are supplementary to Muslim law.
• 3. Legislation
  Muslims are governed by various legislations passed by many legislatures, which have considerably supplemented the Muslim law. For example-
  • • Guardian and Wards Act, 1890
  • • Shariat Act, 1937
  • • Muslim Women Protection of Right and Divorce Act, 1986
• 4. Justice, Equity and Good conscience
  One of the origins of Muslim law is the idea of fairness, justice, equity, and excellent conciseness. These Islamic legal doctrines are known as ‘Istihsan’ or ‘Juristic Equity.

Therefore, the secondary sources of Muslim Law are those sources that are advancements in the establishment set somewhere around the primary sources. These sources are not essential sources of Muslim law but rather the strengthening source of Muslim law.

Answer:- The Muslim law has been derived from various primary sources which are as follows-

• 1. The Quran Quran is the supreme source of Muslim law as it is believed to contain the verses of God himself. It specifies the moral, philosophical, social, political and economic basis on which a society should be constructed.
• 2. Sunna or Traditions Sunna is the second primary source of Muslim law. Sunna can be defined as the path encompassing the practices, traditions, and precedents set by Prophet Mohammed. Sunna or traditions consists of the following:
  • • Sunnat-ul-Qual (Words spoken by Prophet)
  • • Sunnat-ul-Fail (Conduct of Prophet)
  • • Sunnat-ul-Tahrir (Silence by Prophet)
• 3. Ijma The third primary source of the Muslim law is Ijma which means the consensus of opinion among the learned of the community. Thus, it refers to the concurrent opinions of scholars on legal questions, which acquires a form of law. There are three kinds of Ijma:
  • • Ijma of Companions: The concurrent opinion of the companions of Prophet was considered as the most authoritative which could not be overruled or modified.
  • • Ijma of the Jurists: This was the unanimous decision of the jurists.
  • • Ijma of the people or masses: It is the opinion of the majority of the Muslims which was accepted as law.
• 4. Qiyas Qiyas is the fourth and last primary source of the Muslim law. Qiyas is the analogy from the Quran, the Sunnat and the Ijma. Qiyas does not purport to create new law but applies the old principles to the new circumstances.

Therefore, the primary sources of the Muslim law are based on religious and spiritual values and is of great value and importance.

Answer:- The differences between Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice are as follows-

• 1. Res Judicata means a matter which is already decided and cannot be heard again whereas Res Sub judice signifies that the matter is still being heard in the court.
• 2. Res Judicata is mentioned under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code whereas Res sub judice is dealt under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.
• 3. The main objective of Res Judicata is to prevent a second trial of the formerly settled disputes. On the other hand, Res sub judice prohibit parallel proceedings between the same parties.
• 4. In case of Res Judicata, the previously instituted suit must be decided by the competent court in which the issue has been raised subsequently. On the other hand, Res Sub Judice in which the previously instituted suit must be pending in the same court or any competent court having jurisdiction.
• 5. Res Judicata is applicable to suit and applications whereas Res sub judice is applicable only to suits including appeals.

Thus, the main difference between the Res Judicata and Res Sub Judice lie in their applicability, conditions and exceptions. Res Judicata is applicable when a case has reached a final decision while Res Sub Judice is relevant when a case is still pending before a court.

Answer:- The following is the difference between DPSP and Fundamental rights-

Thus, Fundamental Rights confer individual rights and freedoms whereas DPSP provides a roadmap for the state to ensure social and economic justice, promote the welfare of the people and create a just society. The relationship between the two involves balancing and harmonising their objectives to achieve a balanced constitutional framework.

Answer:- A temporary injunction is a court order that is given while a case is ongoing to keep things the way they are until the case is finally decided. Its main purpose is to stop someone from causing serious harm to another party during the legal process.
The temporary injunction is granted by the Court when the Defendant is about to the make some injury to the property of the Plaintiff or threatens the Plaintiff to dispossess the property or creates a third party interest in the property, then in such condition the Court may grant a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendant to do such an act or issue order to prevent the dispossession of the plaintiff or prevent the causing of injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute or creating any third party rights in the property.
Order XXXIX Rule 1 enumerated various grounds for which an order of injunction may be issued. The following are the conditions under which temporary injunction can be granted-

• • Where a property in dispute exists and there lies a risk that it will be damaged, wasted or alienated by any party to the suit or be sold in execution of a decree.
• • Where a defendant intends to or threatens to dispose off or sell the property to defraud its creditors.
• • Where a defendant is about to commit a breach of contract.
• • Where a defendant threatens to dispose the property or cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit.
• • Where the court is of the opinion that a just and equitable ground exists.

Therefore, it can be concluded that a temporary injunction is an order issued by the Court that temporarily restrains a party from taking specific actions or compels them to do certain things for a limited period until a final decision is passed. The grant of temporary injunction cannot be demanded by the party as a question of right nor can be rejected by the Court subjectively.

Answer:- The following are the features of Constitution of India-

• 1. Written and Lengthiest Constitution:
  In 1949, the Indian constitution was adopted; originally it consisted of 395 Articles divided into 22 parts and 9 schedules. Presently, after 105 amendments, it consists of 448 Articles, divided into 25 parts and 12 schedules, which is considered as the longest written constitution in the world and is described as an elephant size living constitution.
• 2. Federal System:
  The Constitution of India has not used the term federal state and has described India as a Union of States. It establishes a federal system of government, with the powers divided between the Central Government and the State Governments. However, the Constitution of India consists of unitary features, such as a strong central government and a single constitution for the entire nation.
• 3. Parliamentary Democracy:
  India has a Parliamentary form of government which has been borrowed from the British Constitution. Under the Parliamentary form of government, the President is the nominal head of the state and Prime Minister is the head of the government.
• 4. Fundamental Rights and Duties:
  Fundamental Rights are one of the most important features of the Indian Constitution under Part III. The Constitution has divided Fundamental Rights into six broad categories (Article 14 to 35). Fundamental Rights are justiciable and are protected by the judiciary. In case of violation of any of these rights one has a right to move to the High Court under Article 226 as well as the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution for the enforcement of their rights. Fundamental Duties were added to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment. Presently, there are 11 fundamental duties for all citizens after 86th Constitutional amendment Act of 2002.
• 5. Independent Judiciary:
  Indian judiciary is an independent and impartial in nature. The Supreme Court of India is the highest Court of Appeal, a guarantor of fundamental rights, and the protector of the Constitution.
• 6. Universal Adult Franchise:
  Indian democracy functions on the basis of one person one vote. The Indian Constitution provides for universal adult suffrage, with every citizen of the country above the age of 18 having the right to vote.
• 7. Single Citizenship:
  The Indian Constitution provides for a single citizenship for the entire country, which means that every citizen of India enjoys the same rights and privileges irrespective of the state they belong to.
• 8. Emergency Provisions:
  The Indian Constitution provides for emergency provisions, which can be invoked in case of a threat to the security of the country or the democratic system of government. There are three types of emergencies under the Constitution of India-
• ✔️ National emergency wherein emergency is caused by war, external aggression or armed rebellion
• ✔️ State Emergency which arises out of the failure of constitutional machinery in states
• ✔️ Financial emergency

Thus, it can be concluded that Constitution is a living document and its horizons are ever expanding. It is the supreme law of land that lays down the framework of governance and defines the rights, powers and duties of the government and the citizens of the country.

Answer:- The following are the differences between Judicial Separation and Divorce-

• 1. Judicial Separation means suspension of conjugal rights or marital obligations without the dissolution of marriage while divorce is the process where the marriage formally comes to an end.
• 2. Judicial Separation is dealt under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 whereas Divorce is mentioned under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• 3. Judicial separation can be filed at any time after the marriage but in case of divorce, it can only be filed after completion of 1 year of marriage.
• 4. Under Judicial separation, right to inheritance remains enforced while in case of Divorce, right to inheritance ends with the passing of the decree for the divorce.
• 5. In case of Judicial Separation, there is a possibility of reconciliation whereas in case of Divorce, there is no possibility of reconciliation.

Thus, Judicial Separation refers to release from matrimonial duties or obligation for certain period of time whereas Divorce is a legal process where the marriage is dissolved and both parties are no longer legally bound to each other. It is important to note that Judicial separation can be divorce but divorce can never be a judicial separation.

Answer:- The term ‘divorce’ derives from a Latin word ‘divortium’ which means ‘to turn aside’ or ‘to separate’. Divorce is the legal cessation of a matrimonial bond. All rights and mutual obligations of husband and wife ceases. There are three theories of divorce under Hindu Law-

• 1. Fault or Guilt Theory
  Under the fault theory of divorce, if one party’s behaviour results in a matrimonial offence, the other party is entitled to seek dissolution of marriage from the guilty spouse. A divorce can only be granted based on certain grounds such as cruelty, rape, sodomy, desertion, etc. These grounds are mentioned under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Under this theory it is important that there must always be one guilty spouse and an innocent spouse.
  The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 lays down nine grounds based on the guilt theory of divorce:
• • Adultery
• • Cruelty
• • Desertion
• • Insanity or mental disorder
• • Conversion
• • Venereal communicable disease
• • Leprosy
• • Renunciation
• • Presumption of death
• 2. Divorce by Mutual Consent
  The provision for dissolving marriage through mutual consent is provided under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. According to this theory, since two persons marry by their free will and they entered into a social contract of marriage, therefore, they should also be allowed to move out of the relationship by their own free will and dissolve their marriage.
• 3. Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
  According to this theory, if a marriage had broken down without any possibility of restoration then it should be dissolved. Where neither of the spouses can live peacefully together and acquire the benefits of a married relationship, then it is better to dissolve the marriage through mutual consent.

Thus, the Hindu Marriage Act recognizes different theories of divorce under Hindu Law such as fault or guilt theory, mutual consent theory and irretrievable breakdown theory.

Answer:- The oldest existing legal system in the world is the Hindu system of jurisprudence. The authority from which the law has been derived is referred to as the source of Hindu law. It indicates the origins of Hindu law, and these sources are regarded as evidence of Hindu law.

• a) Judicial Decisions:
  During British regime in the country Hindu law was administered by British judges with the help of Hindu Pandits because they interpreted the Sanskrit texts for them to apply them to the dispute and to arrive at a decision. So the decision of the higher courts become a law for the lower courts.
• b) Legislation:
  Legislation is the modern source of Hindu law and has a colossal importance, in the evolution and development of Hindu law. The Hindu law has been reformed and modified by the legislature through various enactments in this regard. The British government itself passed certain acts with a view to bring some reforms in certain aspects of law. In post-independence era legislation of far reaching effects has revolutionized the law. Before the independence important legislations passed were:-
  • • The caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850
  • • The Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856.
  • • Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1928
  • • The Indian Succession Act, 1925.
  • • The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1928.
  • • The Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937.
• c) Equity, Justice and Good Conscience:
  In the absence of any specific law in the Smriti, or in the event of a conflict between the Smritis, the principles of justice, equity and good conscience would be applied. In other words, what would be most fair and equitable in the opinion of the Judge would be done in a particular case.

Thus, these sources provide the foundation for the legal framework that governs various aspects of Hindu personal law.

Answer:- The following are the differences between Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement-

• 1. According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal code, whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said to wrongfully restrain that person. On the other hand, wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, as whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits is said to wrongfully confine that person.
• 2. Wrongful restraint includes partial suspension of one’s liberty whereas Wrongful confinement is a complete suspension of one’s liberty beyond certain circumscribing.
• 3. Wrongful Restraint is genus whereas Wrongful Confinement is a species of Wrongful Restraint.
• 4. Wrongful restraint is not as serious as wrongful confinement whereas Wrongful Confinement is a serious offence.

Thus, when a person is restrained from moving forward despite having the option to move back, left, or right, this is known as Wrongful Restraint. Wrongful confinement, on the other hand, encompasses a wide range of restrictions imposed over a period of time, such as the ban on leaving a room, building or park etc.

Answer:- The following are theories of punishments:

• 1. Retribution
  This theory emphasizes that punishment should be proportionate to the offence committed. The idea is that the offender should suffer in the same way as the victim suffered, so as to restore the moral balance in society. In the Indian Penal Code, this theory is reflected in the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth in certain cases.
• 2. Deterrence
  This theory aims to deter others from committing similar offences by imposing harsh punishments on the offenders. The idea is that the fear of punishment will prevent others from committing the same crime. This theory is reflected in the Indian Penal Code through the imposition of maximum sentences for certain offenses.
• 3. Rehabilitation
  This theory emphasizes the reform and rehabilitation of offenders so that they can become responsible members of society. The idea is that offenders should be given opportunities to learn new skills and change their behaviour so that they can reintegrate into the society.
• 4. Prevention
  This theory focuses on preventing crime by incapacitating offenders. This can be done through imprisonment or other forms of confinement, with an aim of keeping offenders away from society and preventing them from committing further crimes.
• 5. Restoration
  This theory emphasizes the restoration of the harm caused by the offence. The idea is that the offender should be required to make amends for the harm caused to the victim either through compensation or through community services.

Thus, it can be concluded that punishment is primarily used as a method of protecting society by reducing the occurrence of criminal behaviour.

Answer:- The oldest existing legal system in the world is the Hindu system of jurisprudence. The authority from which the law has been derived is referred to as the source of Hindu law. It indicates the origins of Hindu law, and these sources are regarded as evidence of Hindu law.

• a) Shruti:
  Shruti, literally, means that what was heard, this word has been derived from the word 'Shru' i.e. to hear. Manu has defined Shruti as follows- By Shruti or what was heard from above (from God) is meant the Veda. Shruti or Vedas are believed to contain the very words of Deity (God). It is the paramount and primary sources of Hindu Law.
• b) Smrities:-
  They are utterances and precepts of the Almighty, which have been heard and remembered and handed down by the Rishis (sages) from generation to generation. The smrities are divided into Primary and Secondary Smrities contained in-
• ✔️ Dharma Sutra (Prose)
• Gautama
• Baudhyana
• Apastamba
• Harita
• Vasistha
• Vishnu
• ✔️ Dharmashastras (Poetry)
• Manu
• Yajnyavalkya
• Brihaspati
• Narada
• c) Commentaries:-
  After the Smrities, the next step in the development of Hindu Law was the composition of a number of commentaries (tika) and Digests (Nibandha) based upon the Smrities. The writing of a particular Smriti is called commentary while the writing on different smrities is called Digests.
• d) Custom:-
  Customs are an important source of Hindu law as they reflect the social, cultural, and religious practices followed by Hindus in different regions of India. Customary law is based on long- established practices that have been recognized and followed by the community for a considerable period of time.

Thus, the sources of Hindu law in India are ancient texts, customs, judicial precedents, and legislative enactments. These sources provide the foundation for the legal framework that governs various aspects of Hindu personal law.

Answer:- According to Section 4(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1930, a contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a price.

• 1. Bilateral Contract
  A sale must be between two different persons and the property has to pass on from one person to another person i.e. Buyer and Seller.
  In State of Gujarat v. Ramanlal Sons Co., a partnership firm was dissolved and the surplus assets including the stock in trade, were divided among the partners. The Court ruled that it wasn't a sale because the partners were both joint owners of the goods and couldn't be sellers and buyers at the same time.
  In Graff v. Evans, the accused was the manager of a club that used to supply intoxicating liquor to its members at a fixed price but the Club did not have a valid license to sell liquor. The accused was arrested for selling liquor to Club members in an illegal way. This was held not to be a sale.
• 2. Goods
  The contract must include goods as its subject matter.
  According to Section 2(7) -
  Goods means “every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money and includes stocks and share, growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming a part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale.”
  For Example- A agreed to sell to B, wheat crops which is grown in his field. A & B agreed that B may cut the crop and take it away upon the payment of the price. As the growing crop is included in the term “goods”, this is a valid contract of sale.
• 3. Price
  Another essential component of a contract of sale is that there must be some price for the goods. It means that the goods must be sold for some price.
  According to Section 2(10) -
  Price means “the money consideration for a sale of goods.”
  Thus, price is the consideration for contract of sale which should be in terms of money. If the ownership of the goods is transferred for any consideration other than the money, it will not amount to sale but an exchange. It is a consideration that can be paid partly in money and partly in goods.
• 4. Transfer of Property
  The transfer of property must take place between the parties, i.e. the buyer must transfer the property he has in the goods to the seller in order to execute a contract of sale.

Answer:- The following are the differences between Sale and Agreement to Sell-

• 1. A contract of sale is the exchange of goods for consideration which takes place immediately. Transfer of possession and ownership is instant. On the other hand, an agreement to sell is the exchange of goods for a consideration in future at a specific time or after fulfilment of specific conditions.
• 2. A contract of sale is a subject of various statutes including:
  • • Indian Contract Act, 1872
  • • Sale of Goods Act, 1930
  • • Transfer of Property Act, 1882
  On the other hand, an agreement to sell is mainly a subject of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
• 3. The nature in the sale is absolute whereas the nature of the agreement to sell is conditional.
• 4. In sale, title transfers with the execution whereas in agreement to sell, title remains with the seller until sale is executed.
• 5. Under Sale, the right to sell remains with the buyer. On the other hand, under agreement to sell, the right to sell remains with the seller.

Thus, it can be concluded that the major difference between sale and agreement to sell is that in a sale, ownership of goods transfers immediately from the seller to the buyer, with accompanying risks and benefits. In contrast, an agreement to sell sets the stage for a future transfer, conditional upon certain conditions.

Answer:- The term Evidence is derived from the Latin term ‘evident’ or ‘evidere’ which means to show clearly, to discover, to ascertain or to prove. According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, evidence means and includes-

• • All such statements which the court allows or needs to be presented before it by the witnesses in connection to matters of fact under inquiry. These statements are termed as oral evidence.
• • All such documents including any electronics record, presented before the court for inspection. These documents are termed as documentary evidence.

According to Sir Taylor “Law of Evidence which branches out of the Law of the procedure means through argument to prove or disprove any matter of fact. The truth of which is submitted to judicial investigation.”
The following are the types of evidences-

• 1. Oral Evidence
  All statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to the matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence. Further, oral evidence is the evidence which is confined to words spoken by mouth or gestures.
• 2. Documentary Evidence
  Documentary evidence is the evidence that mentions any issue described or expressed upon any material by way of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of the ways which can be used for recording the issue. Such evidence is presented in the form of a document to prove a disputed fact in court.

  Further Documentary Evidence is divided into two types i.e. Primary and Secondary evidence.

  • • Primary evidence can be understood as the documentary evidence produced before the court holding supreme value. It is the first hand and the most reliable copy of evidence.
  • • In the absence of any primary evidence, secondary evidence can be used. It is produced from alternative sources in lack of original or main source.
• 3. Hearsay Evidence
  Hearsay evidence means the statement of a witness not based on his personal knowledge but on what he heard from others. It may be called as an indirect, second-hand or derivative evidence. It is a statement made to the Court by a witness who has not seen the happening of the transaction or facts but heard that something had happened.
• 4. Circumstantial Evidence
  Circumstantial or indirect evidence refers to evidence which proves the facts in issue by providing other facts, that is, indirect facts and then proving their relevance.

Thus, Evidence is an imperative part of every case, whether it is a criminal case or a civil suit as it validates a fact. In simpler terms, it would be impossible to determine the results of a case without having any evidence in the case.

Answer:- Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with the doctrine of frustration. According to Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, an agreement that is impossible to perform is itself void. In addition to that, Section 56 also mentions that when a contract to perform an act becomes impossible or for some reason of some event which neither the promisor nor the promisee can prevent, it becomes unlawful and the entire contract becomes void. Section 56 is based on the maxim “les non cogit ad impossibilia” which means that the law will not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform.

• 1) There should be a valid and subsisting contract between the parties
• 2) There must be some part of the contract yet to be performed
• 3) The contract after it is entered becomes impossible to be performed
• 4) The impossibility is by reason of some events which the promisor could not prevent
• 5) The impossibility is not induced by the promisor or due to his negligence

The following are the grounds of frustration of contract-

• 1. Destruction of subject matter
  The Doctrine of Impossibility applies where the actual and specific subject matter of the contract is destroyed.
• 2. Changes in circumstances
  A contract will frustrate where such circumstances arise which makes the performance of the contract impossible.
• 3. Non-occurrence of the contemplated event
  The event which was contemplated to happen becomes impossible to occur.
• 4. Death or incapacity of party to perform
  When the performance of the contract depends upon the existence of a person and if such a person dies or becomes incapable.
• 5. Government intervention
  A contract will be dissolved when legislative or administrative intervention has taken place, it maybe because of formation of new law or simply passing an executive order or passing of a judicial pronouncement.
• 6. Intervention of War
  Contracts may also become impossible of performance owing to the prevalence of war conditions and such contracts are void.

Thus, the doctrine of frustration deals with those cases where the performance of contract has been frustrated and the performance of it has become impossible to perform due to any unforeseen reason or situation.

Answer:- According to Section 383 of the IPC:
“Extortion is the act of dishonestly inducing any person to transfer property, valuable security or anything that can be transformed into a valuable security to another person by deliberately causing fear of harm to themselves or others.”

In order to constitute the offence of extortion, the following essentials must be satisfied-

• • Extortion involves deliberately causing fear in the victim of immediate injury, death or wrongful restraint.
• • The offender must have the intention to commit extortion which involves using threats to induce the victim to give up property or valuable security.
• • The objective of extortion is to obtain property or valuable security from the victim as a result of the threat made.

For example- A person threatens to file a false criminal case against another person unless he pays him a sum of money.

Theft and extortion are two distinct offences under the Indian Penal Code as both the offences involve unlawful taking of property. The following are the differences between theft and extortion:-

• ✔ According to Section 378 of the IPC, theft involves dishonest taking of any movable property with the intent to deprive the owner of such property. On the other hand, extortion is defined under Section 383 of the IPC as the act of intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to that person or to someone in whom that person is interested, in order to compel the person to deliver property or valuable security.
• ✔ The essential ingredients of theft are dishonesty, taking of property and the intent to permanently deprive the owner of such property. On the other hand, the essential elements of extortion are the use of force or threat of force, the intention to compel the delivery of property or valuable security and the intention to cause harm or injury to the victim.

Thus, it can be concluded that the main difference between theft and extortion is that theft is the act of taking someone’s property without their consent while extortion is the act of using force or threat of force to compel someone to give up their property.

Answer:- The following are the difference between acquittal and discharge:-

• 1. Acquittal is when the accused is proven innocent by the court after examining all the facts and evidences presented in the case and is lawfully freed whereas Discharge refers to the legal order of release issued by a Magistrate when there is no prima facie evidence available against the accused.
• 2. In case of Acquittal, a person who has been acquitted cannot be prosecuted for the same offense again whereas a person who has been discharged may be re-arrested for additional inquiry.
• 3. Acquittal is a judicial decision in a criminal case that signifies that the person is not guilty of the offence. On the other hand, Discharge is an order in a criminal case that signifies that the legal proceedings lack sufficient evidence and grounds for it to be continued.
• 4. A person might be acquitted only after the charges have been filed whereas a person might be discharged even before charges are filed.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the major difference between the two is that a person cannot be arrested for the same case in which he has been acquitted by the court whereas a person who has been discharged can be re-arrested for further inquiry.

Answer:- The following are the difference between Coercion and Undue influence-

• 1. Coercion is an act of threatening which involves the use of physical force whereas Undue Influence is an act of influencing the will of the other party.
• 2. Coercion is defined under Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act whereas Undue Influence is dealt under Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act.
• 3. In Coercion, no established relationship is required between the parties. On the other hand, Undue influence exists only when there is a relationship between the parties (e.g., fiduciary relationship).
• 4. Coercion involves threats, physical violence or use of force whereas Undue influence involves moral force or mental pressure.
• 5. Coercion is regarded as a criminal offence whereas Undue influence is not considered as a criminal offence.

Therefore, it can be concluded that Coercion involves use of force or threats to obtain consent while undue influence is the improper use of power to manipulate to enter into an agreement.

Answer:- The following are the differences between Decree and Order:-

• 1) According to Section 2(2) of CPC, Decree means a formal expression of an adjudication which so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be preliminary or final whereas an Order is the formal expression of any decision of a civil court which is not a decree as defined under Section 2(14) of the CPC.
• 2) A decree originates from a suit commenced by presenting a plaint whereas an order is passed in suits initiated through plaint or application or petition.
• 3) A decree conclusively determines the rights of the parties involved in one or more matters while an order may or may not provide a final determination of such rights.
• 4) A decree may be preliminary, final, or partly preliminary and partly final whereas an order is always final.
• 5) Generally, a suit can have only one decree except in certain circumstances. However, one or more orders can be passed in a suit.
• 6) Every decree in a suit can be appealed against but not all orders can be appealed against as there are specific orders that can be subject to appeal. For Example- Section 104 and Order 43, Rule 1 of the CPC.
• 7) A second appeal lies to the High Court in the case of a decree if there is some substantial question of law involved therein whereas no second appeal lies at all even in the case of appealable orders.

Thus, it can be concluded that both decree and order represent formal expression of decisions by a court but they differ in various aspects. A decree is passed in suits that have commenced before the presentation of the plaint and conclusively determines the rights of the parties involved. On the other hand, an order can originate from a suit or through petition-based proceedings but it may or may not provide a final determination of rights.

Answer:- The following are the difference between the Summon Case and Warrant Case-

• • A Summon case means a case relating to an offence and not being a warrant case whereas a Warrant case means a case relating to the offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years.
• • The procedure for summon case has been dealt under Chapter-XX of the Cr.P.C. (Sections 251-259) whereas the procedure for warrant cases has been provided under Chapter XIX of the Cr.P.C. (Sections 238-250).
• • In Summon cases, framing of charges against the accused is not necessary only particulars of the offence must be conveyed to him whereas in warrant cases, framing of charges against the accused is mandatory.
• • A summon case can be converted into a warrant case but a warrant case cannot be converted into a summon case.

Thus, it can be concluded that summons case refers to an offence that does not fall under the category of a warrant case. These offences typically carry less severe penalties as compared to warrant cases whereas warrant case involves offences that are punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding two years. These offences are considered more serious and grave in nature.

Answer:- MITAKSHARA SCHOOL: Mitakshara is one of the essential schools of Hindu law. It is derived from the commentary of the Smriti written by Yajnvalkya. Except for West Bengal and Assam, Mitakshara School is applicable to the whole part of India. Even though Mitakshara has a wide jurisdiction, different part of the country practices law differently due to different customary rules followed by them.

• • Benaras Hindu law school
• • Mithila law school
• • Maharashtra law school
• • Punjab law school
• • Dravida or Madras law school

These law schools comes within the scope of Mitakshara law school and enjoys the same fundamental principle but priority is given to certain treaties and commentaries which is under the authority of Mitakshara.

Dayabhaga School is primarily recognized in Assam and West Bengal. It is one of the essential schools of Hindu laws. It is considered to be a summary for the leading smritis. It primarily focuses on ways to deal with partition, inheritance and joint family.

• • Dayatatya
• • Dayakram-sangrah
• • Virmitrodaya
• • Dattaka Chandrika

Thus, it can be concluded that the Schools of Hindu law are considered to be the basic source of Hindu law which constituted in the development of the Hindu law from its roots. These schools have widened the scope of Hindu law and explicitly contributed in its development.

Answer:- The following are the distinction between Void and Voidable Marriages:-

• 1. A void marriage is considered as no marriage as it is ab initio whereas voidable marriage is a valid marriage unless its validity is not challenged by either of the parties to a marriage.
• 2. Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, deals with Void Marriage. Marriage which infringes the grounds mentioned under Section 5 (i), (iv) and (v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are void marriages whereas Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, deals with voidable marriage. Marriage which infringes the grounds mentioned under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are voidable marriages.
• 3. A Void Marriage does not have any significance in the eyes of law whereas Voidable Marriage is in force and remains valid unless it is questioned.
• 4. In case of void marriages, the court orders the decree of nullity whereas in case of voidable marriages, the court orders the decree after considering all the relevant conditions.
• 5. In void marriage, the parties have the liberty to remarry without any decree of nullity from the court whereas in Voidable Marriage parties are not entitled to do so.
• 6. In void marriages, the first wife as well as the third party whose rights are infringed, has the liberty to file a suit in Civil Court for the declaration of such marriage as void whereas in case of voidable marriage, the parties to marriage have the authority to apply for quashing of such marriage.

Thus, it can be concluded that the main distinction between void and voidable marriages lies in the fact that a void marriage is void from the beginning, whereas voidable marriage is first valid but may be annulled under certain legal situations.

Answer:- On the plain reading of the factual situation given it appears that A has not committed any offence but on analysing the facts properly it can be seen that an offence of attempt to murder has been committed.

The factual situation in the question attracts the legal maxim of “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”, which means that an act does not makes a man guilty of a crime, unless his mind is also guilty.

So, the facts given in the question paints a very clear picture that an offence of attempt to murder has been committed by A.

As pointed above for an act to be punishable either for attempt to commit crime or for actual commission of crime, the existence of a guilty or criminal intention to commit crime (mens rea) is necessary along with an overt act forming part of a series of act which would constitute the actual commission of the offence if it were not interrupted.

Thus, the problem in hand where, A mixed sugar, mistaking it as poison, with milk and then placed the glass on Z’s table, it means A had an intention to murder Z. A did everything on his part to implement his criminal intention to kill Z, therefore even if there was sugar and not poison in glass of Z, A is still guilty of attempt to commit murder of Z.

Answer:- A Decree is judicial determination of rights of parties regarding the matter in controversy involved in a suit. The final determination made by the Judge need to conclusively determine the rights of the parties irrespective of the effect such decree has on a suit.

According to Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Decree means-

"The formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final.

It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include-

• (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order or
• (b) any order of dismissal for default"

Explanation – A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit, it may be partly preliminary and partly final.

The following are the essentials of a decree-

• 1. There must be an adjudication:
  In a suit whenever the judge pronounces a formal decision regarding the matter in dispute, such judicial determination is known as adjudication. For a decision of a court to be a decree, adjudication made by a judge in court of law is necessary. It can be said that any decision in an administrative proceeding does not amounts to adjudication because the decision is not judicially determined.
• 2. The adjudication must be done in a suit:
  Suit has not been defined anywhere under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Suit in general sense would mean a civil proceeding instituted by presentation of plaint. It can be derived from the above mentioned statements that where no civil suit is instituted the adjudication pronounced by the officer in such cases would not amount to a decree. Certain applications instituted are to be treated as suits like proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, the Land Acquisition Act, the Arbitration Act, etc. The decision given under such proceedings are to be treated as decree.
• 3. The adjudication must be done in determining the rights of the parties relating to all or any of the matter in dispute:
  The adjudication of a dispute must determine the rights of the parties with respect to all or any matters in dispute in the suit. Rights of the parties includes substantive and not only procedural rights. For example- Rights of the parties relating to status, limitation, jurisdiction, frame of suit, accounts etc. The rights in matters of procedure are not included in the category of rights under this section.
• 4. Such determination must be conclusive in nature:
  The determination passed by a Court must be final and conclusive in nature. Such decision is a decree which is final and conclusive with respect to the determination of the rights of the parties irrespective of whether the suit has been disposed of by such decision or not.
  For example:
  • • Summary disposal of appeal under Order XLI.
  • • Decision dismissing a suit for want of evidence or proofs are decrees.
• 5. There must be a formal expression of such adjudication:
  The Court must express its decision formally in accordance with the provisions of law.

Thus, it can be concluded that decree is a judicial determination of rights of the parties with respect to any matters of controversy in suit.

Answer:- In light of the given facts there is an issue arising from the problem that-

Whether the act done by A would amount to attempt to murder or is it mere preparation not punishable by law?
The answer to this issue lies in the understanding of the concept of attempt. What constitutes an “attempt” is a mixed question of law and fact, depending largely on the circumstances of the particular case. An “attempt” to commit a crime can be defined as the last proximate act, which a person does towards the commission of an offence, the consummation of the offence being hindered by circumstances beyond his control.

Thus, it is clear from the discussion that before there can be an attempt to commit the crime, there has to be an intention to commit the crime which may be making preparation for committing the offence. Attempt would be a final assault towards the commission of the crime, which may be prevented by some unforeseen events.

Considering the factual situation presented in the question, where A intending to murder Z mixes poison, with the milk and then places the glass on Z’s table. It means A intended to murder Z and for implementing his intention he did what he could have done by mixing poison in milk glass of Z and also placing it on table.

In this case the act of A's mixing of poison in the milk would amount to mere preparation for committing the offence of murder, which would alone not amount to an offence punishable by law. The overt act done by A where he places the poisoned milk glass on Z’s table would amount to attempt. Thus, A has committed the offence of attempt to commit murder of Z.

Answer:- An attempt is an overt act done with an intent to commit such act which would amount to a criminal offence, but it is more than merely making preparation to commit a crime. Attempt is a part of series of acts, which would constitute to actual commission of a crime, if such acts done were not interrupted. Attempt construes of mens rea + actus reus, as it is an overt act done with an intention towards the commission of a crime. Liability begins at a stage when the offender has done an act towards the commission of an offence. The point at which such a series of acts begins cannot be defined but depends upon the circumstances of each particular case.

Attempt has not been defined under Indian Penal Code, 1860, only punishment for attempt has been given under section 511. According to Stephen:

“An attempt to commit a crime is an act done with an intent to commit that crime, and forming part of a series of acts, which would constitute its actual commission if it were not interrupted.

Thus, an act done with intent to commit a crime the commission of which in the manner proposed was, in fact, impossible, is an attempt to commit that crime.

The following are the essentials of an act amounting to attempt of a crime-

• An overt act done ( actus reus)
• With an intention to commit a crime (mens rea)
• Such an act done or a series of acts done
• Which are forming part of the same transaction
• Which would constitute to actual commission of a crime if it were not interrupted

For Example:
A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A is not yet guilty of an attempt to commit murder. A fires the gun at Z, he is guilty of an attempt to commit murder.

In Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, (1962), there is a distinction between ‘preparation’ and ‘attempt’. Attempt begins where preparation ends. Anyone who commits the offence of “attempt to commit a particular offence” when:

• (i) the person intends to commit that particular offence; and
• (ii) when the person, having made preparations with the intention to commit the offence, does an act towards its commission such an act need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of that offence but must be an act during the course of committing that offence.”

So it can be concluded from the aforesaid that before there can be an attempt to commit the crime, there has to be an intention to commit the crime. Attempt would be a final assault towards the commission of the crime, which may be prevented by some unforeseen events.

Therefore, it can be said that an overt act committed with an intention to commit a crime which is interrupted by happening of some unforeseen events. Such overt act would amount to the offence of attempt punishable under Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Answer:- Section 68 to 72 of the Indian Contract Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) deals with the obligations which the law creates in the absence of the agreements. These are known as quasi contracts as these are such agreement which resembles the ordinary contracts. These are those contracts which do not contain the formalities of a contract but the obligations that these contract create is similar to the one created by the contract.

The essence of these contracts lies in the theory of unjust enrichment. It has been based upon the principle “nemo debet locupletari ex aliana jactura” i.e. no person must enrich himself at the cost of the other.

Types of quasi contracts under the Act-

• 1. Claim for necessaries supplied to person incapable of contracting, or on his account- as per section 68 of the Act if any person has supplied necessities to any person who is himself incapable to enter into a contract and such things are necessary for his life then the person who has supplied is entitled to reimburse from the estate of such person.
• 2. Reimbursement of person paying money due by another, in payment of which he is interested- if any person has paid any sum or has done any act which he was not legally bound to pay but is interested in such payment, for another person who is legally bound to pay then the person who has paid is entitled to reimburse from the other person.
• 3. Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act- when any person has done any act or made any payment for which he did not have any intention to do It gratuitously and the other person has enjoyed the benefit of it then the person who has so done the act is entitled to get the repayment to be done or to get the return of that thing.
• 4. Responsibility of finder of goods- as per section 71 if any person is the finder of goods then he will be responsible as a bailee.
• 5. Liability of person to whom money is paid, or thing delivered, by mistake or under coercion- when any person has made any payment or has delivered anything under mistake or coercion then the person who has received the payment or has received such delivery is liable to return or repay the same to the person who has made such payment or has delivered.

Answer:- Negligence means carelessness amounting to the culpable breach of a duty also, failure to do something that a reasonable or prudent man (i.e. an average responsible citizen) would do or doing something that a reasonable man would not do. It can sub-categorized as Professional Negligence involving someone with a special skill and expected to show the skill of an average member of his profession.

Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Medical Negligence is covered under Section 304A which states that “Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”.

In general, for an offence to fall under section 304A there has to be recklessness in the act meaning the person should be indifferent to the consequences of his act the act must be rash and negligent. When such negligence is committed by any medical professional then it is considered to be a medical negligence. Broad principles under medical negligence as tort have been laid down in the celebrated case of Jacob Mathew Vs State of Punjab and Another.

In this case it was held that in the technical profession basic freedom of action should be given as there are many line of treatments, he chooses one and if that fails then he can switch to another one So he must be given that freedom of action The court held that a medical professional shall be held liable only for Gross Negligence. As per the guidelines of the court the Gross Negligence would include the following situations-

• (1) The doctor having the skill but refuses to exercise the skill
• (2) The doctor did not have the skill for that treatment but still he did the treatment knowing that it was risky
• (3) The doctor had the skill but he did the treatment in such a manner that no other doctor of ordinary prudence would have done it in such manner

It was also held that in medical negligence the police shall not immediately arrest the doctor rather shall first take the opinion of the District Health Officer or any other qualified doctor and if he gives opinion that it was the case of gross negligence then only the arrest can be made. Similar ruling was given in the case of Dr Suresh Gupta v Government of NCT of Delhi (2004 SC).

Answer:- The offences against property are given under chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC). The offence of theft has been defined under section 378 and it is punishable under section 379 of IPC.
As per section 378 IPC when any person moves the movable property of the other out of the other person’s possession and without that person’s consent then he is said to have committed the offence of theft. Also for the offence of theft it is essential that the person must have moved the property with a dishonest intention. Therefore for an offence of theft following are the essential requirements-

• 1. Dishonestly- it has been stated that the moving of the property must be done with a dishonest intention. The term dishonestly has been defined under section 24 IPC. As per section 24 dishonestly means that the person must have an intention to cause wrongful loss to another person or to cause wrongful gain to himself.
• 2. Moving the movable property- for an offence of theft the physical movement of the property is required. The person must move the property so as to take the property out of the possession of the other person. The property moved must be a movable property.
• 3. Out of the possession- for an offence of theft it is required that the offender has taken the property out of the possession of the other person. The term possession here includes physical as well as constructive possession. A property is said to be out of the possession of the person when he loses the control over the property.
• 4. Without the consent- in the offence of theft the moving of the property is done without the consent of the person from whose possession the property is taken out.

Section 390 IPC defines the term robbery. It tells us as to how does a theft is converted into the offence of robbery. As per section 390 theft is converted into robbery when the person in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hur, or of instant wrongful restraint, then such person is said to have committed the offence of robbery.

Answer:- As per the general rule of vicarious liability the agent is never held liable and it is the principal who is always held liable for the acts of the agent within the scope or the extent of authority. The same principle has been given under section 230 of the Indian Contract Act (hereinafter referred as the act). As per section 230 it has been stated that the agent can neither sue nor he be sued personally for the enforcement of the contract. But there are three exceptions to this rule in which the presumption is raised that in such cases the agent undertakes to be personally liable. These are as follows-

• 1. When the principal is a merchant who has appointed an agent for the buying and selling of the goods and such merchant principal is residing in a foreign country then in such situation the agent will be held personally liable.
• 2. When the agent does not disclose the name of the principal on whose behalf he was acting then in such case the agent will be personally liable and not the principal. 3. When even though the agent has disclosed the name of the principal but still the principal cannot be sued then the agent will be personally liable and not the principal. If the principal is incompetent to contract then the principal cannot be sued.

Pretended Agent- as per section 235 of the act if the agent untruly represents to some party that he is acting as an agent to the principal and on such representation he induces that party to deal with him then he will be personally liable to compensate the loss of the party.

Fraud or misrepresentation by the agent- as per section 238 of the act if the agent has committed fraud or misrepresentation in the course of business then the principal will be held liable. But if the agent commits fraud or misrepresentation outside the scope of authority then the agent will be held personally liable and the principal is not bound by it.

Answer:- The relevancy of character evidence is given under section 52 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as IEA). The character of a person means the behavioural pattern of any person i.e. how the person conducts towards the society at large. Section 55 defines the term character as the general reputation and disposition of a person. Such evidence may or may not be relevant in the civil or criminal cases. In civil cases as per section 52 the character of a person is generally irrelevant.

But there are certain circumstances in which the character of a person in civil cases becomes relevant. These are as follows-

• 1. The character of a person in civil cases becomes relevant when such character appears from facts otherwise relevant. This means that the character in civil cases will be relevant if such character is relevant in some other provision of the IEA.
• 2. Also as per section 55 of the IEA in civil cases the character of only the plaintiff shall be relevant. Also such character of the plaintiff shall be relevant only if such character affects the quantum of damages he ought to receive.

In criminal cases such character evidence shall be relevant according to the nature of character. In criminal cases the previous good character of the accused is relevant as per section 53 of the IEA. But in section 54 it has been stated that previous bad character of the accused is not relevant. In section 54 it has also been stated that previous bad character in criminal cases becomes relevant in the following circumstances-

• 1. The bad character becomes relevant when the accused has given evidence of his good character. Therefore the bad character of the accused is relevant only in reply to the evidence of good character by the accused.
• 2. Also the bad character of the accused becomes relevant when it is the fact in issue in itself. This happens in cases of previous conviction as in case of previous conviction the bad character is the fact in issue to be proved.

Answer:- Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides for 6 hurdles/conditions which are pre-requisite for enforcing a foreign judgment in India.
The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1937 inserted Section-44A which made bifurcation between “Reciprocating” and “non-reciprocating” territories.
Foreign judgments cannot be directly put to execution and enforcement. It is for this purpose that the CPC lays down the test for a foreign judgment to be ‘conclusive’ for being rendered as enforceable, vide Section 13(2). The six hurdles that such a judgment must cross over are:

• 1. Court of competent jurisdiction;
  • Whether a foreign court is of competent jurisdiction within this section has to be determined according to principles of International Law and not merely according to the law of the foreign country in which the court delivering the judgment functions.
  • In Pemberton v. Hughes (UK case) lordship Lindley. M.R. observed “the jurisdiction which alone is important in these matters is the competence of the Court in international sense i.e. its territorial competence over the subject-matter and over the defendant. Its competence of jurisdiction in any other sense is not regarded as material by the Courts of this country”
  • The question whether a foreign Court is a proper court to deal with a particular matter according to law of the foreign country is a question for the Court of that country and when a foreign court of final authority decides that a particular court is a proper court its decision must be regarded as conclusive for purpose of sec 13.
• 2. Merits of the case;
  • Courts in India have power to examine the judgment to see whether it has been given on merit. It is not open to the court trying the suit in a foreign judgment to decide whether decision of foreign court on the material put before it is right or wrong. The duty of court is merely to see that the foreign court has applied its mind to the fact of the case and law on the point.
  • True test for deciding is to see whether it has been given as penalty for any conduct of the defendant or whether it is based on a consideration of the truth or otherwise of the plaintiff’s case.
• 3. Incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of India;
  • In Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. V. General Electric Co. (1994) it was held that in the field of Private International Law, court refuses to apply a rule of foreign law or recognize foreign judgment or foreign arbitral award if it is found that the same is contrary to the public policy of the country in which it is sought to be enforced
  • Incorrectness or refusal must appear on the face of the proceedings.
• 4. Natural justice; As observed by the Supreme Court in Viswanathan v. Abdul Wajid, the minimum requirement of natural justice are:
  • a) Judge must be composed of impartial person acting fairly, without bias and in good faith.
  • b) Parties must be afforded opportunity to present their case.
• 5. Fraud;
  • Fraud must not be merely constructive, it must be actual fraud consisting of representations designed and intended to mislead.
  • Fraud either on the part of the party in whose favour judgment is given or on the part of the Court pronouncing judgment.
  • Fraud should be connected with the procedure followed in the suit.
• 6. Breach of any law in force in India;
  • Foreign judgment founded on breach of any law in force in India, it will not be enforced even though the defect is not apparent on the face of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court of India in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi ruled that:
(a) Court of competent jurisdiction would be the one which the law under which parties are married, recognises. Any other court would be court without jurisdiction, unless both parties voluntarily and unconditionally subject themselves to the jurisdiction of that Court.

(b) It was held that the decision must be given on the “merits” of the case i.e.:

• (i) The ground of divorce in the decision of the foreign court should be a ground available under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. For instance, if the ground of the foreign decree was cruelty on the applicant, this would be acceptable, as “cruelty” is a stated ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But the same cannot be said for “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”, as this is not a ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• (ii) The decision should be a result of contest between the parties. The non-applicant should have unconditionally submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court and contested the claim or agreed to the passing of the decree. The concept of acquiescence to jurisdiction would not suffice.

In Satya v. Teja Singh, when the respondent had instituted a foreign court proceeding, in a court in whose jurisdiction the applicant has never lived, respondent had made a false representation that respondent was a bona fide resident of that State. It was held that the respondent had practised fraud on the foreign court by concealing this fact. Therefore, that foreign court had no territorial jurisdiction. That foreign court decree was declared invalid by the Supreme Court of India.

In the case of Gurdas Mann v. Mohinder Singh Brar, the Punjab & Harayana High Court held that an ex-parte judgment and decree which did not show that the plaintiff had led evidence to prove his claim before the Court, was not executable under Section 13(b) of the CPC since it was not passed on the merits of the claim.

Answer:- Doctrine of Election is based on principles of equity. Under any instrument if two rights are conferred on a person in such a manner that one right is in lieu of the other, he is bound to elect only one of them. A person cannot choose to select the part of instrument or transaction that is beneficial to him and choose to reject the other part.

The doctrine of election is a branch of rule of estoppel, in terms whereof a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. The doctrine of election postulates that when two remedies are available for the same relief, the aggrieved party has the option to elect either of them but not both.

Section 35 of Transfer of Property Act deals with the doctrine of election. It states that a person transfers a property to another person and that is such property for which he has no right to transfer. Also in such transfer he has conferred a benefit upon the owner of the property, and then in such situation the owner has two options with him. The first one being that the owner can confirm the transfer and accept the benefit and the second one being that the owner can dissent from the transfer. But when he dissents or discards the transfer then he has to return the benefit back to the transferee. Where a particular benefit is expressed to be conferred on the owner of the property which the transferor possesses to transfer, and such benefit is in lieu of that property, if such owner claims the property, he is not bound to relinquish any other benefit that he achieves through the same transaction.

The acceptance of the benefit by the original owner will be considered to be an election by him to confirm the transfer, if he is aware of his duties and responsibilities and of the circumstances that might influence a prudent (reasonable) man into making an election. This knowledge of the circumstances can be assumed if the person who gets the benefit enjoys it for a period of more than two years without doing any act to express dissent. The transferor would ask him to elect his choice, if the original owner does not elect his option within a year of the transfer of property. Even after the reasonable time, if he still does not elect, the original owner shall be presumed to have elected the validation of the property transfer as his choice.

Answer:- There are various powers or jurisdictions of Supreme Court under the Constitution of India. These are as follows-

• 1. Powers related to Original jurisdiction- under Article 131 of the Constitution of India the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been provided. Original jurisdiction means that the SC has the power to deal with the cases originally. These disputes are the ones between the Centre and the States, the centre and the states on one side and the states on the other side, between any two states.
• 2. Power of Writ jurisdiction- the Supreme Court has the power to issue writs as per article 32 for the infringement of fundamental rights. The writs are in the nature of habeas corpus, quo warranto, mandamus, certiorari and prohibition. This is also a kind of original jurisdiction.
• 3. Power of advisory jurisdiction- As per article 143 of the Constitution only the Supreme Court is empowered to provide the advice to the President in case the latter refers any question to the Supreme Court for its opinion.
• 4. Power to hear appeals- The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted by the High Court concerned under Article 132(1), 133(1) or 134 of the Constitution in respect of any judgement, decree or final order of a High Court in both civil and criminal cases, involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Appeals also lie to the Supreme Court in civil matters if the High Court concerned certifies: (a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance, and (b) that, in the opinion of the High Court, the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. In criminal cases, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court – (a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death (b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death (c) certifies under Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.
• 5. Power of special leave to appeal- The Supreme Court has also a very wide appellate jurisdiction over all Courts and Tribunals in India in as much as it may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or Tribunal in the territory of India.

Answer:- A proposal once accepted becomes a promise. Until and unless a proposal is accepted it will not become a promise. Also the acceptance must be a valid one i.e. as per the rules and provisions of the Indian Contract Act.

One of the important rules of a valid acceptance is that the acceptance must be duly communicated. Communication of acceptance can be done in two different modes i.e. inter presents or instantaneous rule or inter absentes or postal rule. As per the instantaneous rule the formation of contract is done as soon as the acceptance is heard by the proposer. As soon as the acceptance is heard then there is no scope of revocation and it results into a valid contract.

In the case of Entores v. Miles Far East (1955) and Bhagwandas v. Girdharilal (1966) it was held that in the cases when the acceptance is heard then there is a concluded contract between the parties.

In the present problem B has sent the letter of rejection to A. But before the letter reaches to A, B changed his mind and telephoned him the acceptance. As soon as the acceptance is spoken and is heard by A then we can consider that there is a valid contract between A and B.

Therefore as B has communicated the acceptance and it has been heard by A and hence there is a valid contract.

Answer:- Section 76 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deal with mistake of fact as a defence to an offence. The Latin maxim ignorantia facti excusat is the basis for this concept.

As per section 79 IPC when any person has committed an offence and while committing the offence he was under a mistake of fact then he shall not be liable for such an offence. Under such mistake of fact and not under mistake of law he believed that he was justified by law to do that act which amounted to an offence. Also the person must have acted in good faith i.e. he did not have any criminal intention to commit this offence.

For example- A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise, to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murderers in the fact, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was acting in self-defence.

Therefore following are the conditions to be fulfilled in section 79 IPC-

• 1. The act was done under mistake of fact and not under mistake of law.
• 2. The act was done under mistake of fact in which the person committing the act believed himself to be justified by law to do that act.
• 3. The act was done under good faith and without any guilty intention.

Answer:- Guarantee in general means giving assurance for the transaction or a contract. In the Indian contract Act the provisions for contract of guarantee are given under section 126 to section 147.
As per section 126 a contract of guarantee means a contract in which one person known as the surety promises to pay or to compensate the promisee or the creditor in case the principal debtor makes a default in payment. Therefore a recoverable debt is a prerequisite for the contract of guarantee. In the contract of guarantee the liability of the surety is secondary to the principal debtor. Firstly the principal debtor is liable to pay or to repay the debt of the creditor. It is only after the principal debtor makes a default, the liability of surety arises. Therefore it is said that the contract of guarantee is accessory to the main contract between the principal debtor and the creditor.
In a contract of guarantee there are total three agreements i.e. one between the principal debtor and a creditor, second between the creditor and the surety and last between the surety and the principal debtor.
In a contract of guarantee the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. The surety may limit his liability if it has been mentioned in the contract. The maximum extent up to which the surety can be made liable is the entire amount of debt and not more than that.
As per section 129 of the act the term continuing guarantee means the guarantee by the surety which is not given for any particular transaction rather for the series of transactions.
Generally no guarantee can be revoked after it has been executed. But in continuing guarantee as per section 130 of the act it can be revoked as to the transactions which are not yet executed i.e. the future transaction and not for the past transactions or the transactions already executed.

Answer:- Co-accused is a person who has committed the crime together with the accused person and has been tried along with the accused. The confession of a co-accused affecting his own interest and the interest of the other accused can be proved and used against the other accused. Such provision has been given under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. As per section 30 if the following conditions are fulfilled then the confession of the co- accused can be used against the other accused-

• 1. The first and foremost condition to be fulfilled is that the confession must be of such a person who is a co-accused. A co-accused is a person who is accused of the same offence as that of the main accused. Also the co-accused must be jointly tried with the other accused. Jointly tried here means that the trial of both the accused must be joined as per the rules given under section 223 CrPC. Therefore if the charges were framed only against one accused and the other accused was discharged then they will not be considered to be jointly tried.
• 2. Second condition to be fulfilled here is that the confession of the co- accused must be proved. The term “proved” here means that the confession was duly proved by the material oral or documentary evidences and the other party had the opportunity to cross examine the co-accused on the basis of such confession. Therefore if one accused was charged but the other co-accused was declared as an approver then the confession will not be considered as being proved and such a confession cannot be used against the other accused.

Answer:-
The procedure to be followed by a Magistrate when there is a complaint case and police investigation is going on in respect of the same offence has been given under section 210 CrPC.

The object behind section 210 is to prevent the wastage of time of the court. The basic objective behind section 210 is to club the proceeding against the same accused in case of same offence. This prevents the multiplicity of proceedings.

As per section 210 it has been stated that when the Magistrate is dealing with the complaint proceedings regarding the accused for an offence and during such inquiry or trial it appears to him that a police investigation regarding the same offence is in process, then he may stay the continuance of the complaint proceedings and may call for the police report for the offence. When the police report is filed and it appears to the Magistrate that the accused in the police report is same as that in the complaint proceedings the he may club both the proceedings and may continue to deal with the case as per the procedure in police report cases.

But if the accused in the police report cases and the complaint proceeding is different, then the complaint proceeding will revive and both the proceedings will be carried on simultaneously.

The real effect of section 210 is when the accused in both the complaint proceedings as well as the police report are the same. The effect was held in the case of Harjinder Singh vs. State Of Punjab And Ors. 1984 SC. It was held that when the accused is same in both the proceedings then the material evidences will be recorded only once. The trial will be joined and there will be a single judgement for both the proceedings.

Answer:-
The criminal justice system aims to deliver the justice. For delivery of justice and for a just and fair decision it is required that the court must be given some inherent powers to prevent the injustice. In India we follow the adversarial rule and not inquisitorial rule. But in exceptional circumstances we follow inquisitorial rule in which the court or the judge becomes pro-active and derives the truth of the matter.

Section 165 Indian Evidence act provides one such power to the judge. This is an extra ordinary power of the judge in which the judge is empowered to ask any question at any stage of the proceeding and to any person i.e. the party or the witness. Also the judge has the power to call any witness or any person to produce any document or evidence in the case. None of the party to the case has the right to object to any question asked by the court or to any document called by the court. Also none of the party is allowed to cross examine any witness on the basis of the question asked by the judge using the power of section 165. Such cross examination can only be done by the permission of the court.

In the case of Nepal Chandra Roy v. Netai Chandra Das (1971) the word “any” was given a wider approach to include anything which the court or the judge considers necessary in order to derive the truth.
Exceptions to the power of the judge under section 165 IEA- The following are the exceptions to the general rule or power under section 165-

1. The court cannot call for the secondary evidence of any primary document which has not been provided under the circumstances in section 65.

2. The court cannot permit or compel the disclosure of the facts which are privileged or are protected under section 121 to 131 as protected communications.

3. The court cannot ask any questions which are prohibited under section 148 or 149 being unreasonable or improper.

Answer:-
As per section 17 of the Indian Contract Act fraud means an act by a party to the contract in which with the intention to deceive or to defraud he actively conceals a fact which he should have disclosed. But this only includes an active concealment of a fact fundamental to the contract.

Generally silence does not amount to fraud. The reason behind this is that law does not cast a duty upon any person to speak. If a person was silent as to a particular fact then that does not signify that this is fraud.

Also the explanation of section 17 states that there are only two situations in which the silence can also amount to fraud. These circumstances are as follows-

• 1. When the person who was silent had the duty to speak.
• 2. When his silent is equivalent to speech of the person.

Answer:-
The process of arrest is very important for the criminal justice system. It is the process which initiates the process of investigation. The procedure of arrest enables the police officer to commence the investigation by interrogating the accused or the arrested person. It includes curtailment of the personal liberty of the arrested person. But at the same time we have the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is considered to be an innocent until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the interest of justice has to be kept in mind. Due to this the procedure of arrest has to be a regulated one.
In the case of Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) it was held that the personal liberty of an individual can only be taken away as per the procedure established by law under article 21. But it was also held that such procedure has to be a just, fair and reasonable one.
Applying the same concept the procedure of arrest must be regulated because it is an important element of criminal justice system. Therefore from section 41 to section 60A of Crpc various rules regulating the procedure of arrest has been given and also various right of the arrested persons are given.
In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) certain guidelines were held by the Apex Court regarding the procedure of arrest. These are as follows-

1. Arrest of a person should not be merely on suspicion about the person’s complicity in the crime and the Police Officer must be satisfied about the justification of such arrest on the basis of some investigation.

2. Arrest should normally be avoided except in cases of heinous crimes. Reasons for arrest must be recorded by police officer in his case diary.

3. An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have one friend, relative or other person who is known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare told as far as practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.

4. Police officer should inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right.

5. An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest. These protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) of the constitution and must be enforced strictly.

Answer:-
A contract is an agreement which is enforceable by law. So when any defendant refuses to perform the contract then it is said that the contract has been breached. Breach of contract is when the defendant does not perform the contract in its entirety. The remedy which is provided under the breach of contract is compensation or damages under section 73 of the Indian Contract Act. The breach committed by the defendant can be of two types-

• Actual breach- when at the time stipulated for the performance of the contract the defendant disables himself or refuses to perform then he shall be liable to compensate for such breach. This has been provided under section 73 of the Act.
• Anticipatory breach- this is the kind of breach in which the defendant does not actually breach the contract at the time of performance of the contract. As per section 39 if the defendant refuses the performance of the contract or disables himself from performing the contract it is known as anticipatory breach of contract.
• In this the plaintiff has two options in such cases- he can treat the prior non- performance as a breach and can rescind the contract before the time stipulated for actual performance. Also he has an option to wait till the stipulated time for performance and afterwards treat it as a breach of contract.
  In the case of Hochester v. De la tour (1853) it was held that the plaintiff can rescind the contract on the basis of anticipatory breach or he can wait till the actual time stipulated for performance of the contract.

Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that in the present case as B has breached the contract by not performing on the sixth night in the theatre therefore this can be treated as an anticipatory contract as per section 39 of the Act. Therefore B is at liberty to rescind the contract and hence he shall not be liable for damages or compensation. But at the same time he has to pay the charges for the previous five night to A for which he has performed the contract validly.

Answer:-
As per section 300 (secondly) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) it has been mentioned that when any person causes bodily injury with the intention to cause bodily injury and at the same time such bodily injury is likely to cause death which the accused knows that it is likely to cause death.

Section 300 (secondly) is the specie of the genus given under section 299 (part 2). As per section 300(secondly) culpable homicide will be murder when the following essentials are fulfilled-

• 1. When the accused has caused bodily injury to the victim- the bodily injury must be caused to a particular body part of a person i.e. it has to be a specific bodily injury.
• 2. He had the intention to cause such bodily injury- the accused did not intend to cause the death directly rather he only intended to cause bodily injury to the victim. This can be inferred by examining the nature of injury given and the kind of weapon used by the accused against the victim. Also a test of reasonable person can be conducted that whether in the same circumstances a reasonable person can be said to have the intention to cause bodily injury or not.
• 3. Bodily injury is likely to cause death- this is the genus effect as this is also there in section 299 part II also. The bodily injury must be likely to cause death of the person. This can be proved by the report or the analysis of the doctor.
• 4. The accused knows that the bodily injury is likely to cause death- this is the specie effect in section 300(secondly). It refers to the mental knowledge of the accused that at the time of causing such bodily injury he knew that by such injury it is likely to cause his death.

Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that the fact that B has an enlarged spleen and with that knowledge he kicked him and caused bodily injury. Therefore it is very clear that he had an intention to caused bodily injury as his conduct of kicking B in his abdomen shows the same. Also in B’s case such bodily injury is likely to cause death as he has an enlarged spleen. It has been stated that A knew that B is suffering from enlarged spleen. Therefore the required actus reus and mens rea for the offence under sec 300(secondly) IPC.

Therefore A is liable for the offence of murder which is punishable under section 302 IPC.

Answer:-
A declaratory decree is the relief that is given to any person to declare the right, title or character of that person. The rationale behind declaratory decree is to ensure certainty of the right, title or interest of any person. It protects the disputes related to property.

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 allows a person to file a lawsuit against someone who denies or is interested in denying their legal character or property rights. The court can then declare that the person is entitled to the legal character or property. Section 34 is broad enough to settle disputes about legal status and conflicting property claims. However, it is not a solution for all legal disputes.

Essential features of a declaratory decree-
1. The plaintiff was at the time of the suit entitled to any legal character or any right to any property.
2. The defendant had denied or was interested in denying the character or the title of the plaintiff.
3. The declaration asked for was a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to a legal character or to a right to property.
4. The plaintiff was not in a position to claim a further relief than a bare declaration of his title.

The Court may refuse to grant the relief of declaration if was able to seek any other further relief but he omits to do so. The court may refuse to grant declaratory decree in cases where the plaintiff was supposed to seek further relief but he claimed mere for the declaration of the right or title through a declaratory decree under section 34 SRA.

Answer:-
(a) As per section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as IEA) when the conduct is of a person who is the party to the suit or proceeding and such conduct is in reference to the fact in issue or relevant fact then such conduct is relevant. Such conduct must either influence or be influenced by the fact in issue or relevant fact.
Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that A here is the accused and hence he is the party to the proceeding. His conduct of absconding soon after the alleged crime is in reference to suit or proceeding or investigation of the offence. His conduct is influenced by the fact in issue i.e. the offence that he has committed.
Therefore this fact will be a relevant fact under section 8 of the IEA.

(b) As per section 8 the conduct of a person against whom the offence has been committed shall be relevant if such conduct is influenced by or influences the fact in issue or relevant fact in the suit or proceeding. Applying the above law to the present facts that B was seen coming out of the house of A distressed and sobbing soon after her alleged rape by A is the conduct of the victim of the crime against whom the alleged rape has been committed. Also such conduct also is influenced by the fact in issue i.e. the alleged rape.
Therefore such fact is a relevant fact as per section 8 of the IEA.

(c ) As per section 7 of the IEA any fact which shows the cause of the fact in issue or relevant fact shall be relevant. Cause here means the reason of the fact in issue i.e. the reason because of which the fact in issue or the relevant fact has occurred.
Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that when the question is whether A robbed B, the facts that shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with money in his possession and that he stored it or mentioned the fact that he had it to third parsons is a relevant fact under section 7 of the IEA. This is because the fact that B went to a fair and showed his money to people is the reason or the cause that after such act he was robbed.
Therefore such fact is relevant under section 7 of IEA.

Answer:-
Indian Criminal Law consists of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Evidence Act, 1872. Collectively they provide for following types of jurisdictions:

•  Subject-matter Jurisdiction – This put limit on Courts to exercise their powers over a particular type of case or a particular subject matter.
• Territorial Jurisdiction – This put limit on Courts to exercise their powers within a territorial limit.
• Pecuniary Jurisdiction – This put limitation of Courts regarding the monetary value or cost of suits or cases.
• Original Jurisdiction – This type allows Courts to hear new cases that have been initiated.
• Appellate Jurisdiction – This type allows Courts to re-hear or review judgments given by lower courts.

• An offence must be committed by any person: It means that it is not necessary for the person to be a citizen of India. As long as a person is within the territories of the Indian subcontinent, they shall be liable under this Code.
• The person will be liable only under this Code and not otherwise: It means that intra- territorial jurisdiction under this Code only applies to offences committed under the IPC and does not hold persons liable for offences committed under other Indian laws.
• The person should have committed some act or omission as per the provisions of this Code: It is in connection with the previous essential that only for acts or omissions committed under the IPC, the person shall be liable.
• The person will be guilty of the offences committed within India: Only accountable in India for their actions or omissions that were committed in India as per the IPC.

• Offence committed by Indian citizen outside India,
• Offence committed by any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India no matter where it may be, and
• Any person outside India targeting computer resource in India

• Extradition: He can be sent to the country where the effect of his wrongdoing took place,
• Extraterritorial jurisdiction: He may be tried in accordance with the criminal laws of India.

• By any citizen of India, either on the high sea or elsewhere, or
• By any non-citizen on ship or aircraft which is registered in India. He may be made liable in accordance with the provisions of Indian laws as if the offence has been committed within the territory of India.

Answer:-
As per section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act it has been stated that when any person wants to prove the contents of the contract then for that only documentary evidence can be given and oral evidence to prove the contents of the document cannot be used.

This is known as the rule of exclusion of oral evidence by documentary evidence. The manifestation of this rule has been given under section 91 of the Act. Also section 92 of the act also states that when the terms of the contract, grants or other disposition has been reduced into writing or is required to be reduced into writing then for the addition, deletion, alteration or modification of the terms of the document only documentary evidence can be given and no oral evidence shall be allowed for that.

But at the same time there are six provisos or exceptions to the general rule of section 92. Proviso 1 of section 92 states that when any person wants to invalidate the document on the ground of fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law then oral evidence can be given for that purpose.

Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that when A wants to give oral evidence of the fact that his consent to the contract or document was not free as it was induced by misrepresentation then he will be allowed to give oral evidence of it as it has been provided in proviso 1 of section 92 of the Act.

Answer:-
As per section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) it has been stated that when the plaintiff wants to file a suit against the defendant then he can file the suit at a place where the cause of action lies. Also the plaintiff can file the suit at any place where the defendant voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.

Section 20 CPC is about the territorial jurisdiction i.e. in the territory of which court the suit must be filed. It is based upon the principle that he who seeks equity must do equity i.e. if the plaintiff has approached the court then he is duty bound to file the suit for the convenience of the defendant. Therefore the suit must be filed at a place in which the defendant voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.

In the case of Harshad Chimanlal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. Anr 2005 SC it was held that section 20 is a residuary provision i.e. it deals with the cases which are not related to immovable property or movable property. As per this provision the plaintiff can file a suit at a place where cause of action lies.

Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that A can sue B for the price and file a suit for the same in Calcutta i.e. where the cause of action has arose. A may also sue B in Delhi because that is the place where B(defendant) voluntarily resides.

Answer:-
As per section 154 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as CrPC) states about the information as to the commission of cognizable offence. When an informant gives information to the officer in charge of the police station and that information is related to the commission of a cognizable offence then such information is known as the First Information Report. As per the rules of law to amount to an FIR it has to be the first detailed information which must be given by the informant.

If an information which is even though the first information but is not a detailed one shall not be considered as a first information report. The logic behind this is that FIR being a substantive piece of evidence has to be detailed and exhaustive i.e. the informant must mention his name, the place of offence etc. exhaustively.

In the case of Surajit Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2012 SC) the concept of cryptic information or cryptic FIR was given. Cryptic information is the FIR or information which is not detailed information. It can be information given over the phone call by a person who did not disclose his name. It was held that in the cases of cryptic information it will not be considered as a valid FIR as per section 154 CrPC as it is not detailed. It has been held that if we consider the cryptic information as an FIR then the detailed information recorded by the police officer on the spot will be hit by section 162 CrPC as being the statement in the course of investigation and cannot be used as evidence in the case. Therefore to prevent this situation it was held that cryptic information is not a valid FIR as per section 154 CrPC.

Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that the information recorded by the police officer about commission of dacoity over the phone shall not be a valid FIR being cryptic information. The information that the police officer recorded on the spot will be the FIR as per section 154 CrPC.

Answer:-
(i) In the given facts A has brought a gun and has loaded it. This amounts to preparation to commit murder. As per IPC the preparation to commit murder is not punishable rather the attempt to commit murder is punishable under section 307 IPC. Attempt means when the accused commits any act towards the commission of the offence. Before the commission of such act there is no punishment is given as it is a stage of mere preparation. Therefore merely purchasing a gun and loading it is not punishable as it is a preparation.

(ii) In the present facts A fires at B. This amounts to attempt to murder. A’s act will be actual commission of murder when B dies. But till B actually dies it will be attempt to murder. As soon as A fires at B now the situation is out of A’s control and it cannot be controlled by A. Now if due to external circumstances the bullet misses B or B does not die then A will be liable for attempt to murder under section 307 IPC.

(iii) In the present facts when A purchased poison and mixed it in the food it is still the stage of preparation. Until the food with poison is in A’s possession he will not be liable as he is in the stage of preparation. But as soon as A hands over the plate to B then such an act towards the commission of the offence then he shall be liable for an attempt to murder. Therefore here A will not be liable for any offence as he is still in the preparation stage.

(iv) In the present facts the moment A handed over the plate to B he is then in the stage of attempt to murder. As soon as the food with poison goes out of the possession of A then even though B does not consume the food due to external circumstances then also A would be liable for the offence of attempt to murder.

(v) In the present case when A woman, with intention of committing suicide runs towards a well, but there she was caught by a person was caught by a person it will not amount to attempt to suicide. The reason behind this is that attempt is when the accused commits an act towards the commission of the offence and the situation is then out of control. But in the present facts the woman did not jump into the well and was just running towards it. If she would have jumped into the well and then due to some fact was saved then she would have been liable for the offence of attempt to suicide under section 309 IPC.

Therefore in the present facts she will not be liable for any offence as she is in the stage of preparation only.

Answer:-
Right to private defence has been given under section 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter known as IPC). Right to private defence is a right to defend or to protect one’s life or property when faced with danger.
Section 97 of IPC states that the right to private defence can be used in order to protect one’s own body or to protect the body of some other person.
Also in the exercise of right to private defence a person can either cause death or can cause any other harm except death depending upon the danger faced by him. Section 100 enumerates the circumstances in which a person who is faced with danger can even cause death of the other person. As per section 100 death can be caused in the exercise of right of private defence in the following circumstances-

1. When there is an assault in which there is a reasonable apprehension of either death or grievous hurt.
2. When the assault is done with the intention of causing rape, unnatural lust, kidnapping or abduction etc.
3. When there is an assault with the intention of wrongful restraint which causes him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.
4. When there is an act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to throw or administer acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such act.

Also in section 101 it has been stated that in all the situations other that those which are enumerated under section 100, in the exercise of right to private defence, can cause any other harm except causation of death. As per section 102 IPC it has been stated that the right to private defence to body can be used or exercised until the apprehension continues. As soon as the apprehension is over then afterwards the right to private defence cannot be validly exercised.
Any defence which has been mentioned under Chapter IV must be specifically pleaded by the accused and it cannot be relied upon without proving it. As it is mentioned under section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act that the accused has the burden to prove the existence of general exception. The Court shall presume the absence of the general exception.

Answer:-
As per section 2(b) of the Indian Contract that acceptance is when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto. Here the word signifies has been used which makes it compulsory that the assent has to be communicated to the other person. This clearly states that the silence does not amount to acceptance.

A person to whom the proposal is made is under no duty to accept the proposal. Law does not cast a duty upon any person to speak up the acceptance. A person is free to give or not to give the acceptance.

In the case of Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) it was held that silence does not amount to acceptance. The only situation when silence can be treated as acceptance is when a person has the duty to speak.

The present problem in question is based upon the facts of Felthouse v. Bindley. Therefore A’s claim against F shall not lie because F was not under any duty to accept the proposal made by A. here even though F had the intention to accept the proposal as he told B an auctioneer to keep the horse out of sale of his farm stock, as he intended to reserve it for his uncle A.

As there was not acceptance to the proposal made by A hence F is not liable to pay any compensation to him and there is not binding contract between them.

Answer:-
As per section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as CPC) the remedy is restitution has been given to the applicant who applies for it.

Restitution means to restore. Restoration here implies the act of returning the benefit which has been received. As per section 144 CPC if any decree or order has been varied, modified or is set aside then any person can file an application under section 144 of the CPC for restitution. In this the court to which the application has been made shall order restitution to the person who is entitled to the benefit. This is done in order to put the parties in the same position in which they were or they would have been if the decree or order would not have modified, varied or set aside.

For the purpose of restitution the court may make any order i.e. refund of cost, payment of interest, payment of damages, payment of compensation, payment of mesne profits etc.

Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that the ex parte decree has been set aside by the appellant court. Upon such setting aside B is entitled to the benefit of property which has been received by A under the ex parte decree.

Therefore the application for restitution by B under section 144 CPC is valid and he will be entitled to the relief of restitution.

Answer:-
Arbitrariness is the unfair and unlimited use of personal power. Arbitrariness is an action that is done without reason or principle. It is done on the will of the person. Arbitrariness always comes along with unjust and unfair.

Equality is a cornerstone of Indian democracy. Equality is the rule of law in a republic. It means treating each individual equally without any biasness towards anyone. Equality always negates arbitrariness because the essence of equality lies in justice, equity and fairness.

In the case of EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974 SC) it was held that equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. Equality can never be seen in isolate rather it has to be seen with the other factors.

Prior to this case all the fundamental rights were seen in isolation. Article 14 provides with equality but it was limited to the rules of article 14 i.e. rule of law, reasonable classification etc. but after this judgement the principles of justice, liberty, equality, fairness were given a broader approach. It was held that all the fundamental right are like overarching principle as they are running across each other and cutting each other.

Therefore where there is equality then the arbitrariness does not have any place. If a principle promotes equality then the arbitrariness has to be kept aside.

Also it was held that Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be cribbed cabined and confined within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness.

Answer:-
As per section 2(b) of the Indian Contract Act it has been stated that when a person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto then he is said to have given an acceptance.

In the given definition the term “thereto” means the acceptance will be a valid acceptance only when it has been given for the same proposal which has been made to the acceptor. As per section 7 the acceptor is duty bound to accept the same proposal which has been made to him without adding or deleting any of the condition of the proposal. If the acceptor changes any condition of the proposal then it does not amount to a valid acceptance rather it amounts to an implied rejection of the original offer. When the acceptor accepts the offer by changing the conditions it is known as a counter offer. And whenever a counter offer is made the original offer is cancelled.

Applying the above law to the present facts it shall be concluded that when 10- 12-89 plaintiff made an offer to the defendant to purchase for rs. 80000 this amounted to counter offer and not acceptance as he changed the terms of the offer.

In the case of Hyde v. Wrench it was held that a proposal once rejected comes to an end. Therefore when on 10-12-89 the plaintiff made a counter offer to the defendant then the original offer stands cancelled or rejected. Therefore the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant will not be successful as there was no binding contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Answer:-
As per section 378 IPC theft is an offence when a person mover a movable property out of the possession of the other person’s possession without such person’s consent. This moving or taking must be done with dishonest intention to deprive the other person of his property wrongfully.

Also explanation I to section 378 IPC states that if any property is attached to the earth then it cannot amount to theft of such property as theft can be done against movable property only. But it has been clarified in that explanation that once the property is severed from earth then it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.

Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that when Sanjoy had cut down the tree on the Vijoy’s land with the intention to take it with him without Vijoy’s consent amounts to theft under section 378 and punishable under section 379 IPC.

Also applying the explanation I to the present facts it can be concluded that even though a tree is not a movable property but as soon as it is severed from the land it becomes movable and capable of being the subject matter of theft.

Answer:-
The best evidence rule states that the direct evidence always excludes hearsay evidence or indirect evidence. Direct evidence means such evidence of a fact which can be directly perceived by any of his senses. On the other hand hearsay evidence means indirect evidence which is not directly perceived. When any person has seen an incident and then he tells it to some other person then if such person gives evidence of such incident then it will be hearsay evidence.
A fact which is not directly perceived is not admissible in evidence as it has been stated in section 60 that oral evidence must always be direct and not indirect.
The rationale behind this best evidence rule that hearsay evidence is not reliable as it is not directly perceived. The person giving evidence of such hearsay fact may manipulate the facts and will not feel responsible towards it as he has not seen it directly. Also the person cannot be cross examined on the basis of hearsay fact stated by him.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE
There are certain exceptions to it. These are as follows-
1. Dying declaration
2. Opinions of experts
3. Admissions and confessions
4. Res gestae
5. Statements of persons, who cannot be found, are incapable of coming to the court etc.
Note- but technically dying declaration is not an exception as the statement of a person who is now dead is directly heard and recorded by the person who is giving evidence of such statement in the court.

Answer:-
The above stated fact is a manifestation of a cause and effect relationship between the agreement and contract.

As per section 2 (e) of the Indian Contract Act an agreement is a promise or set of promises forming consideration for each other. Also as per section 2(h) of the act a contract is an agreement which is enforceable by law. Therefore for a contract an agreement is necessary first. Only after becoming a valid agreement then it can be converted into a valid contract.

An agreement will become a valid contract when it can be legally enforced by the parties. Legal enforceability here means that the contract in order to be a valid contract has to fulfil the ingredients of a valid contract as per section 10 of the Act.

Section 10 of the Act states that an agreement will convert into a contract the following essential feature must be followed-

1. Free consent- an agreement will be a contract in which the consent of both the parties is free. Consent means meeting of minds i.e. agreeing upon the same thing in the same sense. The consent of both the parties must be free from any effect of coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation, fraud or mistake.

2. Competent parties- the parties to the contract must be competent. Competency as per section 11 and 12 means that the parties must be major. Also the parties must not be of unsound mind and must not have been disqualified by law.

3. Lawful consideration- the consideration of the agreement must be lawful as per section 23 of the act i.e. it must not be against the provision of law or must not defeat the law or must not be immoral or against public policy.

4. Lawful object- the object of the agreement must also be lawful as per section 23 of the act i.e. it must not be against the provision of law or must not defeat the law or must not be immoral or against public policy. 5. Not expressly declared as void- the agreement must not be such which has been expressly declared as a void agreement under section 26 to 30 of the Act.

Answer:-
The Preamble to the Indian Constitution is the introduction to the Constitution. It gives the objects and the aims that the Constitution sought to achieve. Also it tells about the intention of the constituent assembly that what the makers of the constitution wanted to achieve.

As it was held in the case of Re Berubari (1960) it was held that the Preamble is the key to open the minds of the makers of the Constitution.

There are various major commitments incorporated in the Indian Constitution. These are as follows-

1. Sovereign- in the preamble the people of India resolve to create a nation which will be a sovereign. The term sovereign means that a nation which is an independent nation i.e. which is not dependent on the foreign nations and is a self-reliant one.

2. Socialist- socialist here refers to social democracy and social justice. It means achievement of socialistic goals. It also signifies the concept of distributive justice.

3. Secular- it is also an inherent feature of the Indian Constitution. It means that the State will not have any religion of its own. This also means that the state shall not favour any religion rather each and every religion is equal in the eyes of the State.

4. Democratic- this is a feature of the Indian Constitution which implies that the representatives in our nation are appointed for the people, by the people and of the people. The people of India elect their governments by a system of universal adult franchise, popularly known as one person one vote.

5. Republic- In a republican form of government, the head of state is elected and not a hereditary monarch. Thus, this word denotes a government where no one holds public power as a proprietary right. As opposed to a monarchy, in which the head of state is appointed on a hereditary basis for life or until abdication, a democratic republic is an entity in which the head of state is elected, directly or indirectly, for a fixed tenure.

6. Justice- the ultimate aim of the Constitution of India is to attain the Justice. Justice here includes the social justice, economic justice and political justice.

7. Liberty- this is also one of the resolution of the Preamble. Liberty here means freedom of action. Liberty includes liberty of thought, belief, faith and worship.

8. Equality- the preamble also motivates the principle of equality among the individuals. Equality here means the equality of status and equality of opportunities.

9. Fraternity, unity and integrity- also it is the object of the Constitution to encourage the feeling of brotherhood among the individuals. Also the preamble aims to promote that the dignity of the individuals is also maintained.

Answer:-
The concept involved in the question is the law related to invitation to proposal or invitation to offer.

Invitation to offer means when the person is not making a proposal rather he is just sharing information about something. Invitation to offer is not a part of the formation of a contract because contract starts from the very root i.e. the proposal. In invitation to proposal the intention is not to obtain the assent but to invite the other person to make a proposal. It is mere sharing of information which can be interpreted by construction. The intention has to be seen. The consequence of the invitation to proposal is that the person, to whom the proposal is made, makes a proposal for the same. Whereas in proposal the consequence is that the person to whom gives his acceptance for the same.

In the case of Pharmaceuticals Society of Great Britain v. Boot Cash Chemist (1953) it was held that when the goods are displayed on shelves then it amounts to a mere invitation to proposal and there cannot be a binding contract merely on the basis of such invitation.

Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that when A sent a pricelist to of goods to B it was an invitation to offer. When B placed an order to A of the goods mentioned in the pricelist then it amounts to a proposal. It will not be a binding contract until A gives acceptance for the same. Therefore B will not get any remedy until A gives his acceptance.

Answer:-
As per section 81 of Indian Penal Code 1860 if any person commits an act without any criminal intention in good faith and in order to prevent any bigger harm from being committed then it will not amount to an offence and the person will be completely excused from his liability.

Section 81 is a manifestation of the principle of necessity. In this if person causes harm by committing any act only with the intention of preventing a bigger harm from being committed then it is a situation of necessity and he must not be penalised.

In the case of Queen v. Dudley and Stephen (1884) and US v. Holmes (1842) it was held that the defence of necessity can be availed in cases of public necessity and not for private necessity or for your own necessity. Public necessity here means the act must be done for the benefit of some other person.

Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that when A in great fire pulled down the houses in order to prevent the fire from spreading is an act of necessity as he is acting here in good faith i.e. for saving the life and property of others. Also he did not have any criminal intention and he pulled the roofs of houses in order to prevent a bigger harm from being committed.

Therefore A shall not be liable for any offence and his act will be completely excused from criminal liability.

Answer:-
Res gestae is a latin term which literally means that part of the same transaction. This is a concept from English law which means that the facts which form the part of same transaction are relevant to each other. The concept of res gestae was propounded in the case of R v. Andrews. In this case the judgement of Ratton v. R was followed.

The general principle of res gestae is manifest in section 6, 7 and 8 of the Indian Evidence act. In these sections the facts which even though in themselves are not facts in issue but they are relevant because they are motive, effect, preparation, cause etc. and are a part of same transaction and hence part of res gestae.

The phrase “part of the same transaction” has been expressly used in section 6 of the Act. Section 6 manifestly deals with the concept of res gestae.

As per section 6 a fact shall be relevant if it is a part of same transaction. Here the facts may not be the fact in issue in themselves but they are a part of the same transaction. Also it does not matter that whether those facts occurred at same time or place or different time or place still they will be relevant under section 6 of they are a part of the same transaction.

The important factor to be determined here is when the transaction started and when did it end. It is between the continuance of such transaction that all the facts shall be relevant. There is hard and fast rule as to the starting and ending of the transaction rather it is a question of fact. The facts which are spontaneously, naturally connected to each other or are so connected that there is not manipulation are said to be a part of same transaction.

This principle was followed by the court in the landmark judgement of Sawal Das v. State of Bihar (1974).

Answer:-
The above mentioned statement is a manifestation of the fact that the procedure of the formation of contract starts from the stage of proposal. Proposal is the first step to form a contract.

Merely having an intention to obtain the assent is not sufficient rather proposal is complete when it is communicated to the person to whom it is made. Therefore proposal is that point from where the contract formation starts.

When the proposal is communicated to the person to whom it is made accepts the same then it gets converted into a promise. The manifestation of this lies in the language of section 2(b) i.e. a proposal when accepted becomes a promise. A mere promise is not binding rather it can be enforced only when it becomes an agreement. To convert a promise into an agreement consideration has to be added to a promise. When we add some value to the promise then it becomes an agreement.

A mere agreement is not a contract. Rather as per section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act only such agreements are contracts which are legally enforceable. Therefore agreements which can be legally enforced by the parties in the court of law then such agreements finally become contracts.

Hence it is justified to state that proposal lies in the roots of the formation of the contract.

Answer:-
Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code states about defence of public necessity. As per the said provision it is stated that when any person without any criminal intention and with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm does an act and causes harm with the purpose or avoiding other harm, he shall not be liable for any offence. For application of section 81 the act must have been done in good faith.

Public necessity in section 81 means the situation when a person considers it necessary to cause a smaller harm in order to prevent a bigger harm. Therefore the act must be done as a matter of public necessity and not private necessity. Hence it is important that the person must be acting under good faith i.e with due care and caution.

Applying the above law to the present facts it may be concluded that in the present facts the act of A pulling down the houses in order to prevent the fire from spreading is an act of necessity. Also it is evident in the facts that he was acting in good faith as he is doing the act in order to save the life and properties of others. Also A’s act was done in order to prevent a bigger harm from being committed.

Therefore it can be concluded that A shall not be liable for any offence as his act of pulling the houses down shall be excused under section 81 of the IPC.

Answer:-
(i) Section 14 Indian Evidence Act states about the state of mind, state of body and bodily feeling. It states that intention is a mental element or state of mind and is relevant under section 14. But explanation 1 of section 14 states that whenever we talk about the relevancy of intention as a fact then it has to be examined that the intention existed against that particular person and not against any other persons in general. Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that the fact that A has the intention to kill B is a relevant fact under section 14 of the Act. But as per explanation 1 the fact that earlier A has shot C is not relevant to prove A’s intention against B because intention must be specifically towards a particular person and not a general one. Therefore this fact is irrelevant under section 14.

(ii) Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the facts which are explanatory. Explanatory facts are those which explain the fact in issue or relevant fact.

Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that the fact that mob which was being headed by A was shouting or crying is relevant under section 9 of the Act. The fact that A was heading the mob and the mob or the people of the mob were crying explains the fact in issue that the A was rioting.

Therefore this fact is a relevant fact under section 9 of the Act.

Answer:-
Feeding of grant by estoppel has its essence in the principle of estoppel. It means that when one person has made a representation and the other person has relied upon it and has altered his position, then the person making the statement cannot retract his statement. This is based upon the principle of equity and justice.

Feeding of grant by estoppel means that when a person has transferred an immovable property to any person by falsely stating that he is authorised to transfer and the opposite person has relied upon that statement then afterwards the transferor has to execute the transfer of property by the interest that he acquires.

This doctrine is derived from another Latin maxim ‘nemo dat quod non habet’ which means ‘no one can confer a better or higher right to property than what he himself possesses’. Section 43 is an exception to this maxim. This doctrine has its manifestation in section 43 of transfer of property act.

As per section 43 of the act the following are the conditions to be fulfilled- 1. There has to be a fraudulent or erroneous transfer of immovable property. It is not required that the transferor has deliberately transferred with defective title rather it will be sufficient if mistakenly he has transferred the property having defective title. 2. The transferee has a right to get the transfer executed against the transferor through the title that he subsequently acquires. This is due to the application of the doctrine of estoppel.

Answer:-
As per section 218 CrPC generally for each offence separate charge shall be framed. Section 219 is an exception to the general rule.

In some cases even though the offences are different but they can be charged together. As per section 219 if a person has committed different offence but these offences are committed in the same transaction then the charges can be joined. But for this the offences must be of same kind. Also it is a requirement that the offences must have been committed within twelve months and the number of offences must not exceed three.
Applying the above law to the present facts it can be stated that A has committed attempted to cause grievous hurt to C and hurt to D i.e. he has committed the offences of the same kind. Also he has committed these offences in the same transaction.
Hence as per section 219, A can be charged for attempting to cause grievous hurt and actually causing simple hurt jointly.

Answer:-
The legal point involved in the given problem lies in section 511 Indian Penal Code. The concept involved here is criminal attempt. Attempt basically is the second last stage of a crime. The attempt of any offence is punishable under IPC. If there are no specific sections for attempt in the IPC then such attempt will be covered under section 511.

As per section 511 a person shall be held liable for attempt of an offence if he has done some act towards the commission of the offence. In such cases the actual commission of the offence is not required rather the person must have committed an act towards the actual commission and then due to the external interferences the offence could not be finally completed. Also the possibility of the happening of the offence is not mandatory. It will not be examined that whether the offence was actually possible or not rather it was examined that whether the accused believed his act to be sufficient for the commission of that offence or not.

Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that when a person with the intention to kill administers poison to the other person but that was actually not poison rather it was sugar, so the point to be considered here is not whether the offence was possible or not rather the point to be considered here is whether the accused believed his preparation to be sufficient for the actual commission of the offence.

Therefore it can be concluded here that in the present case the accused had the intention to kill B and with such intention he administered poison in his food. He believed his act to be sufficient in order to commit the offence. Hence he would be liable for attempt to murder.

Answer:-
Introduction The doctrine of supervening impossibility has been given under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act. This literally means that the contract was not impossible from the very beginning rather subsequently it became impossible due to the uncertainties. This doctrine is dealt with under section 56 para 2 Indian Contract Act. It has been stated that the contract always frustrates because of impossibility. As per section 56 there may be a situation in which the contract initially is valid but due to the subsequent impossibility or due to some situation which the party cannot control, the contract becomes illegal to be performed. In such situations the contract which was initially valid subsequently becomes void due to illegality or impossibility. The impossibility can be of various types. Following are the types of impossibilities which are recognised under the law of contract.

1. Physical impossibility- The contract may become impossible due to physical impossibility. It means that the contract has become impossible to be performed.  Physical impossibility may be that the subject matter of the contract was destroyed (taylor v. Caldwell)  Also the contract can become physically impossible due to the fact that the event for which the contract was entered into did not happen (Krell v. Henry)  It also covers the situation that the parties died or became incapable of physically performing the contract (Robinson v. Davison).

2. Legal impossibility- Also the contract in some situations may be legally impossible. This means that after the making of the contract the law changed and made the contract impossible to be performed. Subsequent to the change in law the contract becomes illegal and hence impossible.

3. Practical impossibility- Also the impossibility may be a practical impossibility which means that even though the contract is physically possible but the actual performance is not rational or feasible (Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur).

Answer:- The procedure of sessions trial has been given under section 225- 237 CrPC. In these provisions the process of sessions trial has been discussed in detail.

Following are the provisions related to the process of sessions trial-

1. The case in a sessions trial is always opened by the prosecutions. The prosecution opens the case by briefing the court about the details and facts of the case. The prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused.

2. If based upon the record of the case and the documents submitted, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution if the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

3. If the accused is not discharged and the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is exclusively triable by the Court of Session then he shall frame a charge. If the case is not exclusively triable by the the court of session then the judge may frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or the Judicial Magistrate of the first class.

4. After hearing the charges if the accused pleads guilty then the judge shall record his plea and convict him on plea of guilt. 5. Then the court shall send the summons to the prosecution witnesses and for prosecution evidences. Then the prosecution shall produce its witnesses and evidences. Also the court will examine the accused personally under section 313. On the basis of the prosecution evidence and the examination of the accused if the judge is of the opinion that the accused has not committed any offence then he shall record an order of acquittal.

6. When the accused is not acquitted then the court will call him to defend him and to produce the evidences in this behalf. The court will issue the summons to the witnesses and the defence will produce the evidences in this regard.

7. Finally the prosecution and the defence shall have the final arguments. The prosecutor shall sum up the case and the accused or his pleader shall be entitled to reply.

8. The last step of the procedure of the Court of Session trial is the judgement. After hearing arguments and points of law, the Judge shall give a judgment in the case.

A. Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of extortion. Extortion means that when any person puts another person under the fear of injury and induces the person so put in fear to deliver the property. The inducement if given to deliver something which is a valuable security or something which can be converted into a valuable security then that would also amount to extortion.

The term injury here is defined under section 44 as an injury which is caused to the body, mind, reputation or property of an individual. Also the term valuable security as defined under section 30 IPC as any document in which any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right.

Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that in the present facts in hand A had put Z in fear of grievous hurt. Here grievous hurt amounts to fear of injury as per the definition under section 44 as it is a fear to cause harm to the body illegally.

Also the fear must be caused in order to induce the person to deliver the movable property or any other valuable security. In the present case in hand the fear of grievous hurt has been caused in order to induce Z to sign on a blank paper. Here blank paper even though prima facie is not a property or any valuable security but it can definitely be converted into a valuable security and hence is covered under the conditions of the offence of extortion.

And under that fear Z signed on the blank paper.

Therefore it can be concluded that in the present case A has committed the offence of extortion under section 383 and it is punishable under section 384 IPC.

The term foreign judgement has been defined under section 2(6) as the judgement of the foreign court. Foreign court has been defined under section 2(5) as the court which is situated outside India and not established within the territory of India. A judgement given by any foreign court shall be conclusive between the parties to the suit.

The conclusiveness of the judgement shall be for the matter which has been adjudicated by that foreign court in such judgement. That shall be conclusive between the parties to the suit or between the persons who are litigating under the parties to the suit. There are certain exceptions to the main rule stated above. These are the situations in

which the judgements of the foreign court are not conclusive proof-

1. When the court passing the judgement does not have the jurisdiction i.e territorial or pecuniary.

2. When the judgement has not been given on the merits. Merits here mean that the parties did not get an opportunity to present the case or there was a material defect or irregularity in the case.

3. When the judgement has been given upon the incorrect view of international law. Also where in the judgement there is a refusal to recognise the Indian law that is in force.

4. The proceedings of that particular judgement are opposed to the principles of natural justice. Here principles of natural justice means that each party must get an opportunity to represent his case and there must be a reasoned judgement.

5. When the foreign judgement has been obtained on the basis of fraud.

6. When the judgement results into the breach of any law in India.

As per section 43 of the CPC the judgement of the foreign court which is established by any authority outside India shall be executed in the same manner which is provided for the territory to which this law applies. If such foreign court is located in any reciprocating territory then as per section 44A it can be executed in the same manner as if it has been passed by the District Court.

Charges mean the accusations upon the accused persons as to the offences that he has committed. The charges are framed by the Magistrate. After the framing of charges the trial starts and the inquiry stage is over. Section 211 to 224 CrPC provides for the rules related to the framing of charges. The policy behind framing of charges lies in the rules of principles of natural justice. This means that as per the rule of audi alterum partem i.e. nobody shall be condemned unheard charges are framed in order to make the accused person aware of the accusations that are put upon him so that he can defend himself in a proper manner.

Contents of charges

As per section 211 of CrPC it has been stated that every charge must specifically state the offence which the accused has committed as per the evidences gathered against him. Also if the law under which such offence has been given defines such an offence by a different name then the charge must specify such name and define it accordingly. The charge must contain the law and the section under which such offence has been punished in the Indian Penal code. The charge shall be written in the language of the court. The language which has been used in the charge must be the formal language which has been used in the section and must be according to the format. If the accused has been previously convicted of some other offence then the date, place etc of the commission of such offence must be mentioned in the charge. Also if the accused shall be subject to enhanced punishment or some different kind of punishment then this fact must be specifically mentioned in the charge.

Also as per section 212 the charge must also contain the particulars as to the time and place and the person against whom the offence has been committed. Also as per section 213 if it is required that the manner of the commission of the offence has to be given then such manner must also be stated in the charge.

common intention is given under section 34 of the Indian Penal code. This is the principle of joint liability under criminal law. Common intention means having shared the same intention. Common intention is when two or more persons have the consensus as idem regarding the act that they want to commit.
As per section 34 IPC when two or more persons commit a criminal act in furtherance of common intention then each of such person shall be held liable for the commission of the offence in the same manner as if it done by him alone.
Therefore following are the ingredients of section 34-
1. There must be prior meeting of minds between the accused persons. The meeting of mind can be specific or prior and it can even be made on the spot. It need not be distinct and specific.
2. The persons have committed the criminal act in furtherance of common intention. In furtherance here means that the act must be committed in the extension of the common intention that they have shared.
3. The accused persons must be actively participating. Active participation here does not mean mere physical presence rather it means the act done by the accused.

Difference between common intention and common object

The jurisdiction in a criminal trial is very important. The reason is that for a correct procedure it is very important that the criminal case is filed in the correct court. There are provisions related to jurisdiction in the criminal procedure code. Therefore in a criminal case the jurisdiction is decided as per the rules given from section 177 to section 189 crpc.
As per section 177 it has been declared that each offence must be tried within the jurisdiction of that court where the offence has been committed.
But there are certain exceptions to the general rule which has been given under section 177-

1. As per section 178 if the offence has been committed partially in one area and partially in other area then the jurisdiction of both the courts is established. Where the offence is a continuing one and it continues in more than one area or it is committed in several acts then each of the court shall have the jurisdiction.

2. When the offence which is committed is the consequence of an act or is in relation to the other act then the courts of all the respective areas shall have the jurisdiction.

3. When the offence which is committed is kidnapping then the court within the territory of which the person is taken or conveyed will have the jurisdiction. The same rule applies in the commission of the offence of theft, receiving stolen property, dealing with stolen property etc.

4. If the offence has been committed in letters then the courts within the territory of which the letters were sent or received shall have the jurisdiction.

As per section 181 it is stated that when any person has been kidnapped then the courts of the places in which the kidnapping has been committed or the person has been conveyed or abducted shall have the jurisdiction. All the respective courts shall have the parallel jurisdiction to try the case.
Applying the above law to the present facts it can be concluded that the courts of both Delhi as well as Shimla shall have the jurisdiction to try the case of kidnapping. The reason is that as per section 181 A was kidnapped in Delhi but conveyed in Shimla and hence the both the courts shall have the jurisdiction.

The offence of criminal conspiracy is an inchoate offence. The policy behind inchoate offences is to prevent the offence from being committed. Therefore even before the main offence is committed the act is punishable under IPC.
In criminal conspiracy also the actual commission of the illegal act is not mandatory rather it is the mere agreement to commit an illegal act which shall be punishable.
Criminal conspiracy has been defined under section 120A of the IPC. As per this provision the criminal conspiracy is an agreement in which two or more persons agree to commit an illegal act or a legal act but by illegal means. For the offence under section 120A mere agreement is the actus reus.

Essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy
1. Two or more persons agree- one of the most essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy is that there has to be an agreement i.e. there has to be consensus ad idem between two persons. The offence of criminal conspiracy cannot be committed otherwise than as an agreement. The persons must agree to commit the illegal act.

2. Illegal act or an act in illegal manner- the agreement between the two or more persons must be to commit an illegal act. Also it may be an agreement to commit an act in an illegal manner.

Illegal as defined under section 43 means that anything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law or which gives ground for civil action. Therefore there are three types of criminal conspiracies under the IPC. These are criminal conspiracy to commit an offence, to commit an act which is prohibited by law and to commit an act which is a civil wrong.

Mere agreement to commit an offence is sufficient and no further act is required to punish a person for criminal conspiracy. Whereas in criminal conspiracy to commit an act which is prohibited by law or which gives ground for civil action mere agreement is not the actus reus rather an act in furtherance is needed to be committed.

The rule against perpetuity has been given under section 14 of the transfer of property act. The rule against perpetuity means that the property cannot be held for indefinite period of time. The basic policy behind such rule is that it is against the policy of free movement of property. This is because the alienation of property for an indefinite period of time is against the principle of justice as such alienation destroys or damages the property and also it leads to the violation of the people’s right to transfer property. In the case of Stanley v. Leigh it was held that the alienation of property for an indefinite period of time is against the policy of law and it destroys the property. Here rule against property as per the provision of section 14 of the transfer of property act means that the following conditions must be followed-
For the rule against perpetuity to apply it has been stated that-
1. For the lifetime of a person- the property can be transferred for the lifetime of a person. During such lifetime the person is expected to preserve the property with sue diligence.
2. For the minority of a person- the property can also be transferred for the minority of a person i.e. for a period of eighteen years. This is the maximum time for which a property can be held or alienated i.e. for the life of a particular person and thereafter till the minority of another person.
3. The person must be in existence on the death of the former one- the person for whose minority the property is being transferred must be in existence at the time of the death of the person for whose lifetime the property was alienated. If the person is not in existence at the time of death of the former then the property shall pass to the legal heirs of such deceased person.

The main question to be determined in the present case is whether a party to an agreement enforce such agreement if such agreement is in the nature of wager’s agreement. Also it has to be determined whether the agreement in which the object was unlawful can be duly enforced or not.
The law on this lies in section 23 and 30 of the Indian Contract Act respectively. As per section 23 of the act the agreements in which the object is unlawful then such an agreement is void. In the present problem tony has borrowed the sum of 5000 form john for the object of betting in cricket which is not lawful or not authorised by law. Therefore this agreement shall be void and John cannot enforce it and claim 5000.
Also as per section 30 the wager’s agreement is void. Wager’s agreement here means that an agreement for an act which is an uncertain act and both the parties to the agreement have mutual chances of winning and losing in it. In the present problem the transaction between tony and Mahesh is in the nature of wager’s agreement. In the agreement of betting it is dependent upon an uncertain event and there are mutual chances of winning and losing. Therefore Mahesh cannot enforce the agreement against tony and claim 5000.

Maintenance under section 125 CrPC is given by the person to his wife, parents, minor son, and daughter etc. Section 125 states various conditions to be fulfilled to make any person liable for the payment of maintenance.
As per section 125 the husband can be ordered to pay the maintenance to his wife when the wife is incapable to maintain herself. The wife referred to under section 125 means a wife who has been divorced by the husband or the wife who has obtained the divorce from her husband.
If the man offers to maintain the wife but the wife refuses to live with him then the Court shall consider the grounds of such refusal. The ground that the husband keeps a mistress or has married some other woman shall be considered to be a valid ground for the woman to refuse to live with the man.

A wife shall not be entitled to get the maintenance when-

1. She is living with some other person in adultery.
2. Without any sufficient reason she refuses to live with the husband.
3. They are living separately by mutual consent.

If a maintenance order has been passed and the person fails to comply with such order and does not pay the maintenance then the Magistrate of first class may issue a warrant for the payment of the amount and may also sentence such person to an imprisonment for not exceeding one month.

The First Information Report is a report about the information related to the commission of a cognizable offence. this information is given by the informant to the police officer. FIR is only related to the cognizable offences. As per section 154 CrPC when an informant gives the information about the commission of cognizable offences to the police officer then the police officer has to reduce it into writing and get it signed by the informant. Then the copies of the first information report is to be given to the informant free of cost.
As per section 154 if the police officer refuses to lodge the FIR the then the informant has the remedy to give the information to the Superintendent of Police and he in return may either conduct the investigation himself or may direct the police officer incharge to conduct the investigation.
In the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2013 SC) it was held that the information as to the cognizable offence I.e. FIR is the first step towards putting the criminal law into motion. Also it was held that it is mandatory for the police officer to lodge the FIR as it is the foundation stone for the delivery of justice.

Evidentiary Value of First Information Report

The FIR recorded by the police officer is not a substantive piece of evidence as it is not a statement given on oath. But it may be used for many other purposes like for corroboration or for contradiction.

• 1.Though the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence, it helps in corroborating the facts and statements made by the informant and cross-examining him thereafte .
• 2. As per Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act (1872), the FIR can be used as proof of the actions of the informant.
• 3. As per Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act (1872), if the informant dies and the statement recorded by the police in the FIR includes the reason for his death or about the events that might lead to his death, then it can act as substantial proof to validate the reasons for his death. This acts as a dying declaration, wherein the person testifies about the circumstances leading to his death.
• 4. As per Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act (1872), the FIR may be used to refute the informant’s testimony. This Section allows the contradiction of witnesses during the cross-examination.
• 5. As per Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act (1872), the FIR may be used in support of a witness but cannot be used to refute or undermine the testimony of other witnesses.

Delay in lodging FIR

When there is a delay in lodging FIR then it will not be a material irregularity rather the court shall be suspicious about conduct of the informant.
But in incest cases or in rape cases there will be no such suspicion as in this the social stigma is involved and the delay in lodging FIR is explained. This was held in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh.

the presumption related to legitimate paternity has been given under section 112 of the evidence act. Section 112 is in the nature of the presumption and that too the presumption of law. It is a principle of conclusive proof i.e. an irrebuttable presumption of law.
As per section 112 the child shall be presumed to be the legitimate child of the man when the conditions of the section are fulfilled.

Following are the conditions to be fulfilled for establishing the conclusive proof of legitimate paternity-

the child whose paternity is in question must be born during the continuity of a valid marriage. The essential requirement for this is that the marriage must be a lawful valid marriage as per the conditions of section 5 of the Hindu marriage act.

a child born after the dissolution of marriage but within 280 days of such dissolution the he or she shall be presumed to be the legitimate child of the man. The essential condition for this that the woman did not remarry with another man before the birth of that child.

the only defence that can be taken by the man in this presumption is that he has to prove the non-access towards the woman. Non access here means that the man has to prove that he did not have the opportunity to have a sexual relationship with the woman.

Being a presumption of conclusive proof technically this presumption cannot be rebutted as it has been given under section 4 that the party does not have a right to disprove the conclusive proof. But as section 112 is a provision related to the interest of justice the larger societal interest lies in the fact that the conclusive proof must be allowed to be rebutted. But that must not be a general rebuttal rather such proof can be rebutted only by the most perfect and accurate piece of evidence.

In the case of Dulhabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh it was held that when the specific tribunal is not exercising the jurisdiction then the civil court shall have the jurisdiction to try the case. Also if the specific tribunal is not following the principles of natural justice then also the civil court shall have the jurisdiction.