UG-CLAT LEGAL REASONING QUIZ 1

Attempt now to get your rank among 0 students!

Question 1:

Read the passage and answer the given questions

Ignorantia facti doth excusat”, which means the ignorance of fact is excusable.It is applicable to civil as well as criminal jurisprudence. It says that ignorance will be considered as an excuse if a person charged with an offence can claim that he/she is unaware of the fact. Section 76 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law.— "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it."  One can’t plead the defence of mistake of fact if the act committed is illegal. Further, no one is permitted to plead for this defence if the responsible investigation reveals the correct facts. Mistake of fact is also not accepted as a plea when the act is punished by law without reference to the mind of the wrong-doer. A certain mistake of fact is not enough. Not every mistake renders a defence. To plead for the mistake of fact as a defence, it must be reasonable and must have been made in a bona fide belief or good faith. In the Chirangi vs State (1952) case, a father kills his own son believing, in straightness, him to be a tiger. Bombay High Court held the accused not responsible for his act by applying a defence of the mistake of fact. It had been observed that a hunter mistakes a person for an animal and often fires a shot. Similarly, here, through an error a person meaning to do a lawful act has done that which is unlawful. There has not been any conjunction between his act and his will, which is important to make a criminal act. If there was no malice aforethought, there was an error therefore it is going to be no crime.

While Section 79 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law - "Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by a reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it." It provides a defence to a person who commits an offence and, because of a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, believes himself to be justified by the law in doing it. A person can take the defence only when he acts in good faith and with good intention and believes that his act is justified by law. According to Black’s law dictionary, the word “justified” means “the act done on adequate reason sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by the unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rule of law”. In Keso Sahu v. Saligram Shah, 1977 CriLJ 1725case, the accused showed that he in good faith and believing that the offence of smuggling rice was going on in the plaintiff’s house and thus he brings the card and Cartman to the police station. The said suspicion was proved to be wrong. The court held that the accused can take the defence of mistake of fact as he is doing the act in good faith and believing it to be justified by law.

In a city, a policeman fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. In the given situation, which statement is true?

Read the passage and answer the given questions

Ignorantia facti doth excusat”, which means the ignorance of fact is excusable.It is applicable to civil as well as criminal jurisprudence. It says that ignorance will be considered as an excuse if a person charged with an offence can claim that he/she is unaware of the fact. Section 76 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law.— "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it."  One can’t plead the defence of mistake of fact if the act committed is illegal. Further, no one is permitted to plead for this defence if the responsible investigation reveals the correct facts. Mistake of fact is also not accepted as a plea when the act is punished by law without reference to the mind of the wrong-doer. A certain mistake of fact is not enough. Not every mistake renders a defence. To plead for the mistake of fact as a defence, it must be reasonable and must have been made in a bona fide belief or good faith. In the Chirangi vs State (1952) case, a father kills his own son believing, in straightness, him to be a tiger. Bombay High Court held the accused not responsible for his act by applying a defence of the mistake of fact. It had been observed that a hunter mistakes a person for an animal and often fires a shot. Similarly, here, through an error a person meaning to do a lawful act has done that which is unlawful. There has not been any conjunction between his act and his will, which is important to make a criminal act. If there was no malice aforethought, there was an error therefore it is going to be no crime.

While Section 79 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law - "Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by a reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it." It provides a defence to a person who commits an offence and, because of a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, believes himself to be justified by the law in doing it. A person can take the defence only when he acts in good faith and with good intention and believes that his act is justified by law. According to Black’s law dictionary, the word “justified” means “the act done on adequate reason sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by the unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rule of law”. In Keso Sahu v. Saligram Shah, 1977 CriLJ 1725case, the accused showed that he in good faith and believing that the offence of smuggling rice was going on in the plaintiff’s house and thus he brings the card and Cartman to the police station. The said suspicion was proved to be wrong. The court held that the accused can take the defence of mistake of fact as he is doing the act in good faith and believing it to be justified by law.

Question 2:

Read the passage and answer the given questions

Ignorantia facti doth excusat”, which means the ignorance of fact is excusable.It is applicable to civil as well as criminal jurisprudence. It says that ignorance will be considered as an excuse if a person charged with an offence can claim that he/she is unaware of the fact. Section 76 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law.— "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it."  One can’t plead the defence of mistake of fact if the act committed is illegal. Further, no one is permitted to plead for this defence if the responsible investigation reveals the correct facts. Mistake of fact is also not accepted as a plea when the act is punished by law without reference to the mind of the wrong-doer. A certain mistake of fact is not enough. Not every mistake renders a defence. To plead for the mistake of fact as a defence, it must be reasonable and must have been made in a bona fide belief or good faith. In the Chirangi vs State (1952) case, a father kills his own son believing, in straightness, him to be a tiger. Bombay High Court held the accused not responsible for his act by applying a defence of the mistake of fact. It had been observed that a hunter mistakes a person for an animal and often fires a shot. Similarly, here, through an error a person meaning to do a lawful act has done that which is unlawful. There has not been any conjunction between his act and his will, which is important to make a criminal act. If there was no malice aforethought, there was an error therefore it is going to be no crime.

While Section 79 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law - "Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by a reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it." It provides a defence to a person who commits an offence and, because of a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, believes himself to be justified by the law in doing it. A person can take the defence only when he acts in good faith and with good intention and believes that his act is justified by law. According to Black’s law dictionary, the word “justified” means “the act done on adequate reason sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by the unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rule of law”. In Keso Sahu v. Saligram Shah, 1977 CriLJ 1725case, the accused showed that he in good faith and believing that the offence of smuggling rice was going on in the plaintiff’s house and thus he brings the card and Cartman to the police station. The said suspicion was proved to be wrong. The court held that the accused can take the defence of mistake of fact as he is doing the act in good faith and believing it to be justified by law.

A, an officer of a Court of Justice, being ordered by that Court to arrest Y, and, after due enquiry, believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. Has A committed a crime? Give the answer.

Read the passage and answer the given questions

Ignorantia facti doth excusat”, which means the ignorance of fact is excusable.It is applicable to civil as well as criminal jurisprudence. It says that ignorance will be considered as an excuse if a person charged with an offence can claim that he/she is unaware of the fact. Section 76 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law.— "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it."  One can’t plead the defence of mistake of fact if the act committed is illegal. Further, no one is permitted to plead for this defence if the responsible investigation reveals the correct facts. Mistake of fact is also not accepted as a plea when the act is punished by law without reference to the mind of the wrong-doer. A certain mistake of fact is not enough. Not every mistake renders a defence. To plead for the mistake of fact as a defence, it must be reasonable and must have been made in a bona fide belief or good faith. In the Chirangi vs State (1952) case, a father kills his own son believing, in straightness, him to be a tiger. Bombay High Court held the accused not responsible for his act by applying a defence of the mistake of fact. It had been observed that a hunter mistakes a person for an animal and often fires a shot. Similarly, here, through an error a person meaning to do a lawful act has done that which is unlawful. There has not been any conjunction between his act and his will, which is important to make a criminal act. If there was no malice aforethought, there was an error therefore it is going to be no crime.

While Section 79 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law - "Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by a reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it." It provides a defence to a person who commits an offence and, because of a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, believes himself to be justified by the law in doing it. A person can take the defence only when he acts in good faith and with good intention and believes that his act is justified by law. According to Black’s law dictionary, the word “justified” means “the act done on adequate reason sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by the unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rule of law”. In Keso Sahu v. Saligram Shah, 1977 CriLJ 1725case, the accused showed that he in good faith and believing that the offence of smuggling rice was going on in the plaintiff’s house and thus he brings the card and Cartman to the police station. The said suspicion was proved to be wrong. The court held that the accused can take the defence of mistake of fact as he is doing the act in good faith and believing it to be justified by law.

Question 3:

Read the passage and answer the given questions

Ignorantia facti doth excusat”, which means the ignorance of fact is excusable.It is applicable to civil as well as criminal jurisprudence. It says that ignorance will be considered as an excuse if a person charged with an offence can claim that he/she is unaware of the fact. Section 76 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law.— "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it."  One can’t plead the defence of mistake of fact if the act committed is illegal. Further, no one is permitted to plead for this defence if the responsible investigation reveals the correct facts. Mistake of fact is also not accepted as a plea when the act is punished by law without reference to the mind of the wrong-doer. A certain mistake of fact is not enough. Not every mistake renders a defence. To plead for the mistake of fact as a defence, it must be reasonable and must have been made in a bona fide belief or good faith. In the Chirangi vs State (1952) case, a father kills his own son believing, in straightness, him to be a tiger. Bombay High Court held the accused not responsible for his act by applying a defence of the mistake of fact. It had been observed that a hunter mistakes a person for an animal and often fires a shot. Similarly, here, through an error a person meaning to do a lawful act has done that which is unlawful. There has not been any conjunction between his act and his will, which is important to make a criminal act. If there was no malice aforethought, there was an error therefore it is going to be no crime.

While Section 79 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law - "Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by a reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it." It provides a defence to a person who commits an offence and, because of a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, believes himself to be justified by the law in doing it. A person can take the defence only when he acts in good faith and with good intention and believes that his act is justified by law. According to Black’s law dictionary, the word “justified” means “the act done on adequate reason sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by the unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rule of law”. In Keso Sahu v. Saligram Shah, 1977 CriLJ 1725case, the accused showed that he in good faith and believing that the offence of smuggling rice was going on in the plaintiff’s house and thus he brings the card and Cartman to the police station. The said suspicion was proved to be wrong. The court held that the accused can take the defence of mistake of fact as he is doing the act in good faith and believing it to be justified by law.

A is accused of trying to steal B's umbrella. A has pleaded that he was intoxicated while taking the umbrella and had mistakenly assumed that the umbrella was his own. The defence is justifiable because A, in good faith, took the umbrella of the other as his own. Will A be held responsible for his act? Give the answer.

Read the passage and answer the given questions

Ignorantia facti doth excusat”, which means the ignorance of fact is excusable.It is applicable to civil as well as criminal jurisprudence. It says that ignorance will be considered as an excuse if a person charged with an offence can claim that he/she is unaware of the fact. Section 76 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law.— "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it."  One can’t plead the defence of mistake of fact if the act committed is illegal. Further, no one is permitted to plead for this defence if the responsible investigation reveals the correct facts. Mistake of fact is also not accepted as a plea when the act is punished by law without reference to the mind of the wrong-doer. A certain mistake of fact is not enough. Not every mistake renders a defence. To plead for the mistake of fact as a defence, it must be reasonable and must have been made in a bona fide belief or good faith. In the Chirangi vs State (1952) case, a father kills his own son believing, in straightness, him to be a tiger. Bombay High Court held the accused not responsible for his act by applying a defence of the mistake of fact. It had been observed that a hunter mistakes a person for an animal and often fires a shot. Similarly, here, through an error a person meaning to do a lawful act has done that which is unlawful. There has not been any conjunction between his act and his will, which is important to make a criminal act. If there was no malice aforethought, there was an error therefore it is going to be no crime.

While Section 79 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law - "Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by a reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it." It provides a defence to a person who commits an offence and, because of a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, believes himself to be justified by the law in doing it. A person can take the defence only when he acts in good faith and with good intention and believes that his act is justified by law. According to Black’s law dictionary, the word “justified” means “the act done on adequate reason sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by the unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rule of law”. In Keso Sahu v. Saligram Shah, 1977 CriLJ 1725case, the accused showed that he in good faith and believing that the offence of smuggling rice was going on in the plaintiff’s house and thus he brings the card and Cartman to the police station. The said suspicion was proved to be wrong. The court held that the accused can take the defence of mistake of fact as he is doing the act in good faith and believing it to be justified by law.

Question 4:

Read the passage and answer the given questions

Ignorantia facti doth excusat”, which means the ignorance of fact is excusable.It is applicable to civil as well as criminal jurisprudence. It says that ignorance will be considered as an excuse if a person charged with an offence can claim that he/she is unaware of the fact. Section 76 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law.— "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it."  One can’t plead the defence of mistake of fact if the act committed is illegal. Further, no one is permitted to plead for this defence if the responsible investigation reveals the correct facts. Mistake of fact is also not accepted as a plea when the act is punished by law without reference to the mind of the wrong-doer. A certain mistake of fact is not enough. Not every mistake renders a defence. To plead for the mistake of fact as a defence, it must be reasonable and must have been made in a bona fide belief or good faith. In the Chirangi vs State (1952) case, a father kills his own son believing, in straightness, him to be a tiger. Bombay High Court held the accused not responsible for his act by applying a defence of the mistake of fact. It had been observed that a hunter mistakes a person for an animal and often fires a shot. Similarly, here, through an error a person meaning to do a lawful act has done that which is unlawful. There has not been any conjunction between his act and his will, which is important to make a criminal act. If there was no malice aforethought, there was an error therefore it is going to be no crime.

While Section 79 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law - "Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by a reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it." It provides a defence to a person who commits an offence and, because of a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, believes himself to be justified by the law in doing it. A person can take the defence only when he acts in good faith and with good intention and believes that his act is justified by law. According to Black’s law dictionary, the word “justified” means “the act done on adequate reason sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by the unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rule of law”. In Keso Sahu v. Saligram Shah, 1977 CriLJ 1725case, the accused showed that he in good faith and believing that the offence of smuggling rice was going on in the plaintiff’s house and thus he brings the card and Cartman to the police station. The said suspicion was proved to be wrong. The court held that the accused can take the defence of mistake of fact as he is doing the act in good faith and believing it to be justified by law.

Mr. X, a police officer, shot an innocent person Y mistaking him to be a thief, although he believes that he is bound to nab the thief. What action will be taken against his act?

Read the passage and answer the given questions

Ignorantia facti doth excusat”, which means the ignorance of fact is excusable.It is applicable to civil as well as criminal jurisprudence. It says that ignorance will be considered as an excuse if a person charged with an offence can claim that he/she is unaware of the fact. Section 76 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law.— "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it."  One can’t plead the defence of mistake of fact if the act committed is illegal. Further, no one is permitted to plead for this defence if the responsible investigation reveals the correct facts. Mistake of fact is also not accepted as a plea when the act is punished by law without reference to the mind of the wrong-doer. A certain mistake of fact is not enough. Not every mistake renders a defence. To plead for the mistake of fact as a defence, it must be reasonable and must have been made in a bona fide belief or good faith. In the Chirangi vs State (1952) case, a father kills his own son believing, in straightness, him to be a tiger. Bombay High Court held the accused not responsible for his act by applying a defence of the mistake of fact. It had been observed that a hunter mistakes a person for an animal and often fires a shot. Similarly, here, through an error a person meaning to do a lawful act has done that which is unlawful. There has not been any conjunction between his act and his will, which is important to make a criminal act. If there was no malice aforethought, there was an error therefore it is going to be no crime.

While Section 79 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law - "Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by a reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it." It provides a defence to a person who commits an offence and, because of a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, believes himself to be justified by the law in doing it. A person can take the defence only when he acts in good faith and with good intention and believes that his act is justified by law. According to Black’s law dictionary, the word “justified” means “the act done on adequate reason sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by the unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rule of law”. In Keso Sahu v. Saligram Shah, 1977 CriLJ 1725case, the accused showed that he in good faith and believing that the offence of smuggling rice was going on in the plaintiff’s house and thus he brings the card and Cartman to the police station. The said suspicion was proved to be wrong. The court held that the accused can take the defence of mistake of fact as he is doing the act in good faith and believing it to be justified by law.

Question 5:

Read the passage and answer the given questions 

Ignorantia facti doth excusat”, which means the ignorance of fact is excusableIt is applicable to civil as well as criminal jurisprudence. It says that ignorance will be considered as an excuse if a person charged with an offence can claim that he/she is unaware of the fact. Section 76 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law.— "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it."  One can’t plead the defence of mistake of fact if the act committed is illegal. Further, no one is permitted to plead for this defence if the responsible investigation reveals the correct facts. Mistake of fact is also not accepted as a plea when the act is punished by law without reference to the mind of the wrong-doer. A certain mistake of fact is not enough. Not every mistake renders a defence. To plead for the mistake of fact as a defence, it must be reasonable and must have been made in a bona fide belief or good faith. In the Chirangi vs State (1952) case, a father kills his own son believing, in straightness, him to be a tiger. Bombay High Court held the accused not responsible for his act by applying a defence of the mistake of fact. It had been observed that a hunter mistakes a person for an animal and often fires a shot. Similarly, here, through an error a person meaning to do a lawful act has done that which is unlawful. There has not been any conjunction between his act and his will, which is important to make a criminal act. If there was no malice aforethought, there was an error therefore it is going to be no crime.

While Section 79 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law - "Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by a reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it." It provides a defence to a person who commits an offence and, because of a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, believes himself to be justified by the law in doing it. A person can take the defence only when he acts in good faith and with good intention and believes that his act is justified by law. According to Black’s law dictionary, the word “justified” means “the act done on adequate reason sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by the unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rule of law”. In Keso Sahu v. Saligram Shah, 1977 CriLJ 1725 case, the accused showed that he in good faith and believing that the offence of smuggling rice was going on in the plaintiff’s house and thus he brings the card and Cartman to the police station. The said suspicion was proved to be wrong. The court held that the accused can take the defence of mistake of fact as he is doing the act in good faith and believing it to be justified by law.

Mr. Z is accused of taking a 14 years old unmarried girl, Y out of the possession and without the consent of her parents. Mr. Z has bona fide and reasonable belief as Y had told him that she is 18 years old. In the given situation, which statement is true?

Read the passage and answer the given questions

Ignorantia facti doth excusat”, which means the ignorance of fact is excusable.It is applicable to civil as well as criminal jurisprudence. It says that ignorance will be considered as an excuse if a person charged with an offence can claim that he/she is unaware of the fact. Section 76 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law.— "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it."  One can’t plead the defence of mistake of fact if the act committed is illegal. Further, no one is permitted to plead for this defence if the responsible investigation reveals the correct facts. Mistake of fact is also not accepted as a plea when the act is punished by law without reference to the mind of the wrong-doer. A certain mistake of fact is not enough. Not every mistake renders a defence. To plead for the mistake of fact as a defence, it must be reasonable and must have been made in a bona fide belief or good faith. In the Chirangi vs State (1952) case, a father kills his own son believing, in straightness, him to be a tiger. Bombay High Court held the accused not responsible for his act by applying a defence of the mistake of fact. It had been observed that a hunter mistakes a person for an animal and often fires a shot. Similarly, here, through an error a person meaning to do a lawful act has done that which is unlawful. There has not been any conjunction between his act and his will, which is important to make a criminal act. If there was no malice aforethought, there was an error therefore it is going to be no crime.

While Section 79 in the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: Act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing himself justified by law - "Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by a reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it." It provides a defence to a person who commits an offence and, because of a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, believes himself to be justified by the law in doing it. A person can take the defence only when he acts in good faith and with good intention and believes that his act is justified by law. According to Black’s law dictionary, the word “justified” means “the act done on adequate reason sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by the unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rule of law”. In Keso Sahu v. Saligram Shah, 1977 CriLJ 1725case, the accused showed that he in good faith and believing that the offence of smuggling rice was going on in the plaintiff’s house and thus he brings the card and Cartman to the police station. The said suspicion was proved to be wrong. The court held that the accused can take the defence of mistake of fact as he is doing the act in good faith and believing it to be justified by law.

Question 6:

Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as follows:

 “(1) A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another—

(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or

(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.

(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872)”.

In such condition the dominating party has taken an unfair advantage of the weaker party. However if the contract is made in the ordinary course of business, it cannot be said to have been induced by undue influence. When consent to a contract is caused by undue influence the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. And any such contract may be set aside either absolutely or if the party who was entitled to avoid it has received any benefit may return the benefits received. Where there is no relationship shown to exist from which undue influence is presumed, that influence must be proved.

Mr. Ramesh approached a micro finance company for loan of Rs. 200000/- which was not available from other due to tight money market. The company agreed but at a high rate of interest. Mr. Ramesh accepted. Can he repudiate on the ground of undue influence?

Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as follows:

 “(1) A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another—

(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or

(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.

(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872)”.

In such condition the dominating party has taken an unfair advantage of the weaker party. However if the contract is made in the ordinary course of business, it cannot be said to have been induced by undue influence. When consent to a contract is caused by undue influence the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. And any such contract may be set aside either absolutely or if the party who was entitled to avoid it has received any benefit may return the benefits received. Where there is no relationship shown to exist from which undue influence is presumed, that influence must be proved.

Question 7:

Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as follows:

 “(1) A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another—

(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or

(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.

(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872)”.

In such condition the dominating party has taken an unfair advantage of the weaker party. However if the contract is made in the ordinary course of business, it cannot be said to have been induced by undue influence. When consent to a contract is caused by undue influence the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. And any such contract may be set aside either absolutely or if the party who was entitled to avoid it has received any benefit may return the benefits received. Where there is no relationship shown to exist from which undue influence is presumed, that influence must be proved.

Mr. X having advanced money to his son, Y, during his minority, upon Y's coming of age obtains, by misuse of parental influence, a bond from Y for a greater amount than the sum due in respect of the advance. Does Mr. X employ undue influence over Y?

Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as follows:

 “(1) A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another—

(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or

(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.

(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872)”.

In such condition the dominating party has taken an unfair advantage of the weaker party. However if the contract is made in the ordinary course of business, it cannot be said to have been induced by undue influence. When consent to a contract is caused by undue influence the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. And any such contract may be set aside either absolutely or if the party who was entitled to avoid it has received any benefit may return the benefits received. Where there is no relationship shown to exist from which undue influence is presumed, that influence must be proved.

Question 8:

Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as follows:

 “(1) A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another—

(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or

(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.

(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872)”.

In such condition the dominating party has taken an unfair advantage of the weaker party. However if the contract is made in the ordinary course of business, it cannot be said to have been induced by undue influence. When consent to a contract is caused by undue influence the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. And any such contract may be set aside either absolutely or if the party who was entitled to avoid it has received any benefit may return the benefits received. Where there is no relationship shown to exist from which undue influence is presumed, that influence must be proved.

When dominating party enters into a contract with the weaker party, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon whom?

Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as follows:

 “(1) A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another—

(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or

(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.

(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872)”.

In such condition the dominating party has taken an unfair advantage of the weaker party. However if the contract is made in the ordinary course of business, it cannot be said to have been induced by undue influence. When consent to a contract is caused by undue influence the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. And any such contract may be set aside either absolutely or if the party who was entitled to avoid it has received any benefit may return the benefits received. Where there is no relationship shown to exist from which undue influence is presumed, that influence must be proved.

Question 9:

Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as follows:

 “(1) A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another—

(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or

(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.

(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872)”.

In such condition the dominating party has taken an unfair advantage of the weaker party. However if the contract is made in the ordinary course of business, it cannot be said to have been induced by undue influence. When consent to a contract is caused by undue influence the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. And any such contract may be set aside either absolutely or if the party who was entitled to avoid it has received any benefit may return the benefits received. Where there is no relationship shown to exist from which undue influence is presumed, that influence must be proved.

If the consent to a contract is caused by undue influence, how the contract will be affected?

Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as follows:

 “(1) A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another—

(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or

(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.

(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872)”.

In such condition the dominating party has taken an unfair advantage of the weaker party. However if the contract is made in the ordinary course of business, it cannot be said to have been induced by undue influence. When consent to a contract is caused by undue influence the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. And any such contract may be set aside either absolutely or if the party who was entitled to avoid it has received any benefit may return the benefits received. Where there is no relationship shown to exist from which undue influence is presumed, that influence must be proved.

Question 10:

Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as follows:

 “(1) A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another—

(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or

(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.

(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872)”.

In such condition the dominating party has taken an unfair advantage of the weaker party. However if the contract is made in the ordinary course of business, it cannot be said to have been induced by undue influence. When consent to a contract is caused by undue influence the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. And any such contract may be set aside either absolutely or if the party who was entitled to avoid it has received any benefit may return the benefits received. Where there is no relationship shown to exist from which undue influence is presumed, that influence must be proved.

According to the given passage, which of the following statements is true?


Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as follows:

 “(1) A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another—

(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or

(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.

(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872)”.

In such condition the dominating party has taken an unfair advantage of the weaker party. However if the contract is made in the ordinary course of business, it cannot be said to have been induced by undue influence. When consent to a contract is caused by undue influence the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. And any such contract may be set aside either absolutely or if the party who was entitled to avoid it has received any benefit may return the benefits received. Where there is no relationship shown to exist from which undue influence is presumed, that influence must be proved.