Legal Aptitude
General · Class 12 · CBSE
GeneralClass 12CBSEMedium
Q1/15
⏱45s
Assertion (A): caveat emptor means the buyer beware. Reason (R): One should rely on the representation made by the seller.
← all quizzestap an option to answer
All questions in this chapter
50 multiple choice questions on Legal Aptitude — General, Class 12. Open any question for its answer and explanation.
Q1.Principle: It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence. A, with guilty intention, abets a child or lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence if committed by a capable person.
- A.A has no intention of abetting a child or a lunatic
- B.An act done by a lunatic is not liable for that offence
- C.A is not guilty of an offence as an abettor
- D.A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence
Q2.Principle: Communication of proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. 'A's servant 'B' found A's missing nephew but did not know about the reward offer when he found the boy. 'B' claims the reward.
- A.Yes 'B' is liable because he found the son
- B.No he cannot claim because he is servant of 'A'
- C.No, 'B' cannot claim reward because when he found the boy, he did not know about the offer and reward
- D.None of these
Q3.Principle: A student must attend at least 70% of total classes to be eligible for semester exam. Anand missed one week due to a road accident and fell short of 70% attendance. He was debarred. He challenges this in court.
- A.Anand will succeed as the accident was beyond his control
- B.Anand will get favour on humanitarian ground as he is economically poor
- C.Anand will not succeed as he could have fulfilled the eligibility criteria by being regular throughout the semester
- D.Anand will succeed as 70% attendance requirement may be declared arbitrary
Q4.Assertion (A): caveat emptor means the buyer beware. Reason (R): One should rely on the representation made by the seller.
- A.Both A and R are true
- B.Both A and R are true and (R) is correct explanation of (A)
- C.R is true A is false
- D.A is true R is false
Q5.Assertion (A): Principal is liable for act of agent. Reason (R): Principal is liable due to principle of vicarious liability.
- A.Both A and R are false
- B.Both A and R are true (R) is correct explanation of (A)
- C.Both A and R are true
- D.A is true but R is false
Q6.Donatio non . . . . . .
- A.num alia
- B.perficitur
- C.praesumitur
- D.mortis
Q7.aequitas est . . . . . .
- A.aequalitas
- B.aucli
- C.qui vult
- D.cum injuria
Q8.actus non facit reum, . . . . . . sit rea.
- A.nisi mens
- B.rem cantelam
- C.ad quem
- D.ligitimi non
Q9.Principle: Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against an immediate harm using reasonable force. Mr. Kaul was bitten by Mrs. Mattoo's dog. When the dog was running away, Mr. Kaul shot and killed it. Mrs. Mattoo sues for compensation.
- A.She will succeed because Mr. Kaul killed the dog when it was not actually attacking him
- B.She will not succeed because Mr. Kaul was justified in shooting the dog
- C.She will not succeed because Mr. Kaul acted to protect himself and other public members
- D.None of the above
Q10.Principle: A careless person becomes liable for negligence when he owed a duty of care to others. Kashish boarded a moving bus keeping the door open. Ashish, standing at the platform edge, was hit by the door and injured.
- A.Kashish is liable to Ashish for not having taken care to close the door of the moving bus
- B.Kashish is not liable as it was the duty of the conductor to close the door
- C.Kashish is not liable as it was Ashish's duty to take care while standing on the platform
- D.None of these
Q11.Principle: Negligence is omission of what a reasonable man would do; one owes duty of care if a responsible man can foresee injury; one is not liable if injured party volunteers to take the risk. X sat atop a tree to watch a cricket match without buying a ticket. A ball hit X injuring him.
- A.The organizers and stadium owners are liable to compensate
- B.The cricketer who hits the ball is liable along with the organizers, but the stadium owner is not responsible
- C.Nobody is responsible
- D.None of the above
Q12.Principle: Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person's use/enjoyment of land. Use should be normal and reasonable taking into account surroundings. Pavan started a typing class in his house; the typing sound disturbed Jeevan (who cannot tolerate any continuous noise). Jeevan filed a suit.
- A.Pavan is liable, because he should not have started typing class in his house
- B.Pavan is liable, because as a neighbour, he should have realised Jeevan's delicate nature
- C.Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan
- D.None of the above
Q13.Principle: A person is entitled to use reasonable force for self-defence. Gokul fired at robbers inside his house but missed. After robbers fled and neighbours gathered, Gokul came out and fired at fleeing robbers, injuring a neighbour.
- A.Gokul is not liable, since his action was in continuation of self-defence
- B.Gokul is liable, because he should have realized the possibility of hitting an innocent bystander
- C.Gokul is not liable since his act was intended against the robbers
- D.None of the above
Q14.Principle: Culpable homicide - causing death with intention or knowledge that act is likely to cause death. 'A' knows 'Z' is behind a bush. 'A' induces 'B' (who doesn't know) to fire at the bush. 'B' fires and kills 'Z'.
- A.A does not have intention to cause Z's death
- B.B does not know that A has the intention to cause Z's death
- C.Z was not behind the bush
- D.A has committed the offence of culpable homicide
Q15.Principle: Right of private defence against assault extends to risk of harm to innocent persons when necessary. A is attacked by a mob intending to murder him. He cannot fire without risk of harming children mingled with the mob.
- A.A has the right of private defence
- B.A does not have the right of private defence
- C.A cannot use his right of private defence against mob
- D.A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children
Q16.Principle: No legal remedy exists for an injury caused by an act for which one has consented. Vijay purchased a ticket to watch cricket. A six hit by Virat Kohli injured Vijay. Vijay sues BCCI.
- A.Vijay should be compensated as he purchased the ticket for entertainment, not to get injured
- B.Vijay would lose as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk
- C.BCCI is liable as it did not ensure spectators were protected
- D.None of the above
Q17.Principle: An act shall not be good consideration for a promise unless done at the desire of the promisor. Shyam purchased land for a 'Barat Ghar'. 60 persons agreed to donate Rs. 10,000 each, but some later refused. Can Shyam enforce payment?
- A.Yes, Shyam can enforce the subscribers to make payment
- B.No, because Shyam did not confer any obligation on the good faith that all subscribers will pay
- C.No, because it is the will of subscribers whether they pay or not
- D.None of these
Q18.Principle: A seller of goods cannot transfer better rights than he himself possesses. Komal left his watch in a park. Sonal found it and sold it to Monal. Komal claims the watch from Monal.
- A.Komal cannot succeed as Monal has paid good price
- B.Komal cannot succeed as Monal is unaware that Sonal is not its owner
- C.Komal cannot succeed as it was his own carelessness
- D.Komal cannot succeed as Sonal is merely finder of the watch and cannot transfer ownership to Monal
Q19.Principle: Whoever while taking away moveable property without consent causes death, hurt or wrongful restraint commits 'Robbery'. Bunty followed a bank customer to a lonely place, showed a pistol, fired at him, and snatched the bag.
- A.offence of theft
- B.offence of robbery
- C.offence of causing hurt
- D.offence of murder
Q20.Principle: An agreement without consideration is not valid. William agreed to sell his car to Smith for Rs. 10,000 (voluntary). Anson later offered Rs. 1 lakh. William wants to cancel the agreement with Smith claiming inadequate consideration.
- A.William can cancel his agreement with Smith as the consideration involved is inadequate
- B.William cannot cancel his agreement with Smith as the sale was voluntary and the price has value in eyes of law
- C.William can cancel as he was ignorant about the market value of the car
- D.William can cancel as he is entitled to get full market value of his car
Q21.Principle: Nothing is an offence done by accident without criminal intention while doing a lawful act with proper care. X, attacked while asleep by brother Y, struck with bamboo and accidentally killed intervening father F.
- A.Father 'F' was killed by 'X' intentionally
- B.Father 'F' was killed by X and Y accidentally
- C.X is given the protection of section 106 IPC
- D.Accused 'X' exercised lawful right of self-defense and the blow fell on father by accident - fully protected by sections 80 and 106
Q22.Principle: Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. Ramesh wrote to Vasant assuming acceptance unless Vasant replied. Vasant directed his agents not to sell to anyone else but agents sold to Kanti. Can Ramesh enforce contract against Vasant?
- A.No, he cannot because an offer cannot be considered accepted unless its acceptance is communicated
- B.Yes, Ramesh can file a suit against Vasant
- C.No, because Kanti bought the property and now he is the owner
- D.No, Ramesh cannot file a suit against Vasant
Q23.Principle: Fundamental Right to carry on any trade but reasonable restrictions can be imposed in public interest. A notice was given to dyers/printers in Rajkot to close business till environmental measures were taken, as untreated water was being discharged.
- A.Notice cannot be justified as it will cause loss of employment to 30000 families
- B.Notice cannot be justified as it violates Fundamental Right of 25-year-old businesses
- C.Notice cannot be justified as residents have voluntarily lived there and are used to that environment
- D.The notice can be justified as the right to business is not absolute and reasonable restrictions can be imposed
Q24.Principle: An offer becomes a promise when accepted unconditionally. Ram offered to sell house to Shyam for Rs. 50 lakh. Shyam accepted with a condition of quarterly installments. Ram refused. Shyam then agreed to pay as originally desired. Ram did not reply. Can Shyam compel Ram?
- A.Shyam can compel Ram because Shyam ultimately agrees to pay as originally desired
- B.Shyam can compel Ram because Shyam in the first instance substantially complied
- C.Shyam can compel Ram because Ram's offer does not exclude installment payment
- D.Shyam cannot compel Ram because Shyam imposed a new condition while accepting
Q25.Principle: A person has no remedy against an injury caused by an act to which he has consented. Raj asked a taxi driver to drive fast; the driver exceeded 60 km/h limit at 90 km/h causing an accident. Raj filed suit against Taxi Company.
- A.The Taxi Company would not be liable since Raj asked the driver to drive fast
- B.The Taxi Company would be liable, because the driver ought not to have exceeded the speed limit
- C.The Taxi Company would be liable, because 'driving fast' should only mean driving within the speed limits
- D.None of the above
Q26.Principle: A master shall be liable for the acts of his servants done in the course of employment. M (a villager) mistakenly boarded an HMT employee bus and was injured due to driver's negligence. Can M sue HMT?
- A.M will succeed, because he got into the bus without realizing that it was HMT bus
- B.M will not succeed, because it was for him to find out whether it was a public transport
- C.M will succeed, because the driver was anyhow duty-bound to drive carefully
- D.None of these
Q27.Principle: Nothing is an offence done by a person who by mistake of fact in good faith believes himself to be bound by law to do it. An officer arrests 'Z' believing him to be 'Y' after due enquiry.
- A.A has committed no offence
- B.A has committed offence
- C.A has committed no offence because being ordered by the court
- D.A has committed an offence of arresting 'Z' by misrepresenting 'Y'
Q28.Principle: Whoever captured by the enemy and voluntarily serves or aids the enemy shall be punished with death. John was tortured as POW and divulged Indian Army positions. Is John liable to death sentence?
- A.No, because he was tortured
- B.Yes, because his information led to loss of many innocent Indian lives
- C.No, because he did not aid the enemy 'voluntarily' which is the prime requirement
- D.None of the above
Q29.Principle: Volenti non fit injuria. An old lady walked in a narrow one-way lane at night against traffic. A car without headlights hit her. She filed a suit against the driver.
- A.She would lose, because she violated the traffic rules in the first instance
- B.She would lose, because she voluntarily exposed herself to risks
- C.The driver would lose, because he drove without proper headlights
- D.None of these
Q30.Principle: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment. Mahesh (driver) gave a lift to his fiancée Roopa while on duty; she was injured. Can Roopa get compensation from Lipton and Co.?
- A.Lipton and Co., shall be liable, because Mahesh was in the course of employment at the time of accident
- B.Lipton and Co., shall not be liable, Mahesh was not in the course of employment when he took Roopa
- C.Roopa got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody
- D.None of the above
Q31.Which of the following propositions could be inferred from the facts and the rules? (Re: Kamala and criminal damage)
- A.Kamala is guilty of criminal damage as Lucky was not its lawful owner
- B.Kamala is guilty of criminal damage as she took the painting without Lucky's consent
- C.Kamala is not guilty of criminal damage as the painting has not been completely destroyed
- D.None of the above
Q32.Is Kamala guilty of theft? (Facts: Kamala climbed through a window and removed the painting from Lucky's room to return it to Indira.)
- A.No, Kamala is not guilty of theft since Lucky was not its lawful owner
- B.No, Kamala is not guilty of theft since she took the painting only with the motive of returning it to Indira
- C.Yes, Kamala is guilty of theft as she took the painting out of Lucky's possession without his consent
- D.None of the above
Q33.If Lucky had discovered the painting before leaving Indira's house rather than at the rubbish dump, would he have been guilty of theft?
- A.Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the newspapers and the paintings
- B.No, he would not be guilty of theft
- C.Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the painting
- D.None of the above
Q34.Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage? (Facts: Lucky pasted the painting on a plain sheet of paper reducing its restoration value by half.)
- A.No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting
- B.Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the painting
- C.No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore
- D.No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting
Q35.Has Lucky committed theft? (Facts: Lucky found a painting among newspapers he was authorized to throw away and took it home.)
- A.Yes, Lucky has committed theft of the newspapers and the painting
- B.No, Lucky has not committed theft because he had Veena's consent
- C.Yes, Lucky has committed theft of the painting, but not of the newspapers
- D.No, Lucky has not committed theft because he has not moved the painting out of Veena's possession
Q36.An instrument as defined under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 means
- A.a negotiable instrument
- B.a transferable instrument
- C.a non-testamentary instrument
- D.a will
Q37.Match schedule one and two: A. Concurrent list, B. Rule of Law, C. Directive Principle of State Policy, D. Procedure Established by Law with 1. Constitution of Japan, 2. Constitution of Ireland, 3. British Constitution, 4. Constitution of Australia
- A.A-1, B-2, C-3, D-4
- B.A-2, B-4, C-3, D-1
- C.A-1, B-3, C-4, D-2
- D.A-4, B-3, C-2, D-1
Q38.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 event, the Transfer is called
- A.conditional transfer
- B.transfer by interest
- C.absolute transfer
- D.contingent transfer
Q39.Which of the following contracts cannot be specifically enforced as per the provision of Section 14 of the Act?
- A.Execution of a formal deed of partnership
- B.Contract for the construction of any building or execution of any other work on land
- C.Contract which is determinable in its nature
- D.Contract to execute a mortgage or furnish any other security for repayment of any loan
Q40.Whether confession made to a Police Officer (while not in custody) by an accused of an offence can be proved against him and is a ..... evidence.
- A.admissible
- B.not admissible
- C.partially admissible
- D.None of the above
Q41.Assertion (A): The essence of joint liability under Section-149 of the IPC is that the criminal act must have been done with a view to fulfill the common object of an unlawful assembly. Reason (R): Any sudden and provocative act done by a member of an unlawful assembly would render the other members liable.
- A.Both A and R are true but R is the correct explanation of A
- B.Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A
- C.A is true but R is false
- D.A is false but R is true
Q42.Assertion (A): The right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is guaranteed as a Fundamental Right. Reason (R): The Supreme Court of India has been appointed as the guardian of the Constitution.
- A.Both A and R are true but R is the correct explanation of A
- B.Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A
- C.A is true but R is false
- D.A is false but R is true
Q43.Assertion (A): A void contract is not necessarily illegal. Reason (R): Every illegal contract is void.
- A.Both A and R are true but R is the correct explanation of A
- B.Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A
- C.A is true but R is false
- D.A is false but R is true
Q44.Under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 a person is said to have notice of a fact when
- A.he actually knows the fact
- B.may have knowledge about the fact
- C.could with reasonable cause know the fact
- D.is not at all aware of the fact
Q45.Under the following which is absolute incapacity for marriage?
- A.Consanguinity
- B.Affinity
- C.Fosterage
- D.All of these
Q46.Which one of the following Provisions of the Indian Penal Code defines 'Unlawful Assembly'?
- A.Section 141
- B.Section 142
- C.Section 146
- D.Section 149
Q47.Indian Evidence Act deals privilege
- A.as a right only
- B.as a duty only
- C.as a right and duty both
- D.neither as a right nor as a duty
Q48.According to the Constitution of India, concentration of wealth violates
- A.the Directive Principles
- B.the Concept of the Welfare State
- C.the Spirit of the Constitution
- D.the Right to Freedom
Q49.Which of the following Muslim laws applies in India?
- A.Muslim Penal Law
- B.Muslim Law of Evidence
- C.Muslim Law of Sales of Goods
- D.Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
Q50.Which is true about the following statement?
- A.Charge-sheet is signed by complainant only
- B.Charge-sheet is signed by both complainant and opposite party
- C.Charge-sheet is signed by the Investigating Officer and sent to court
- D.Charge-sheet is signed by Magistrate only