Previous Year Papers

Download Solved Question Papers Free for Offline Practice and view Solutions Online.

Test Series

Take Zigya Full and Sectional Test Series. Time it out for real assessment and get your results instantly.

Test Yourself

Practice and master your preparation for a specific topic or chapter. Check you scores at the end of the test.

Legal - Aptitude and Reasoning

Multiple Choice Questions

1. Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own. No law made by the State can take away a person’s fundamental right.
Facts: Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.

No writ would lie against Parliament, as the court has no authority to direct Parliament to enact or re-enact a law
The court can quash existing law if it violates fundamental rights and can direct Parliament to make a new law
The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct Parliament to make a new law
The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct Parliament to make a new law

44 Views

2. Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal.
Fact: “Ramanuj telegraphed to Shyam Sunder, writing: “Will you sell me your Rolls Royce CAR? Telegram the lowest cash price.” Shyam Sunder also replied by telegram: “Lowest price for CAR is Rs. 20 lakh.” Ramanuj immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: “I agree to buy the CAR for Rs. 20 lakh asked by you.” Shyam Sunder refused to sell the car.

He cannot refuse to sell the CAR because the contract has already been made.
He can refuse to sell the CAR because it was only invitation to offer and not the real offer
It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent
It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent

39 Views

3. Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests.
Facts: Mr. X who is usually of sound state of mind, but occasionally of unsound state of mind, enters into a contract with Mr. Y when he was of unsound state of mind. Mr. Y having come to know about this fact afterward, wants to file a suit against Mr. X.

Mr. X cannot enter into contract because he is of unsound state of mind when he entered into contract.
Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on the other party to prove that he was of unsound state of mind at the time of contract.
Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on Mr. X to prove that he was of sound state of mind at the time of contract.
Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on Mr. X to prove that he was of sound state of mind at the time of contract.

34 Views

4. Principle: Willful rash driving is an offense.
Facts: Mr. Tiwari was driving his car after drinking alcohol. Police books him for willful negligent driving. Is the act of the police lawful?
No, because Mr. Tiwari was not driving rashly; he was drunk while driving.
No, this is not a negligent act.
Yes, because Mr. Tiwari was driving rashly
Yes, because Mr. Tiwari was driving rashly

No, because Mr. Tiwari was not driving rashly; he was drunk while driving.

38 Views

Principle: Whoever intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent moves that property such taking is said to commit theft.
Fact: Ramu cuts down a tree on Rinku's ground with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Rinku's possession without Rinku' s consent. A could not take the tree.

Ramu can be prosecuted for theft.
Ramu cannot be prosecuted for theft.
Ramu can be prosecuted for an attempt to theft.
Ramu can be prosecuted for an attempt to theft.

43 Views

Principle: Preparation is not an offence except the preparation of some special offences.
Fact: Ramesh keeps poisoned halua in his house, wishing to kill Binoy whom he invited to a party and to whom he wishes to give it. Unknown to Ramesh his only son takes the halua and dies. in this case.

Ramesh is liable for the murder
He is not liable for murder since it is a preparation alone.
He is liable for culpable homicide
He is liable for culpable homicide

49 Views

7. Principle: Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse.
Fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for Transit’. On 26th Nov. 1962 the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the “Manifest” of the aircraft.

X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago
X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable
X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable
X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable

35 Views

Principle: Mens rea and actus reus must concur to result in a crime which is punishable by the law.
Facts: A and B went for shooting. A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Has an offence been committed?

A had mens rea but no actus reus. B had actus reus but no mens rea. no one is guilty.
A induced B to fire at the bush with the knowledge that Z is there. A is guilty of culpable homocide but B is not guilty of any offence.
Both A and B are guilty
Both A and B are guilty

32 Views

9. Principle: Any direct physical interference with goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass of goods.
Facts: Z purchased a car from a person who had no title to it and sent it to a garage for repair. X believing wrongly that the car was his, removed it from the garage.

X cannot be held responsible for trespass of goods as he was under a wrong belief.
X can be held responsible for trespass of goods
X has not committed any wrong.
X has not committed any wrong.

36 Views

10. Principle: Mere silence as to the facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, on close examination it is found to be the duty of the person keeping silent to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.
Facts: X sells by auction to Y, a horse which X knows to be of unsound state of mind. X says nothing to Y about the horse’s unsound state of mind. Give the correct answer-

X can be held liable for fraud
X can be held liable for misrepresentation
X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse
X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse

40 Views