Jalebi Bai conducted Nitinnatyam lessons in her flat which was just above Chameli’s flat. Chameli suffered from migraine and the constant thud of people’s feet from the ceiling of her house gave her severe headaches. Chameli decided to sue Jalebi Bai for nuisance. Will she succeed?

Principle: Whoever causes unreasonable interference to the right of another over his property and space is causing nuisance.

• Yes, because Jalebi Bai should consider Chameli’s illness. They are neighbours, after all, and should be considerate to each other.
• Yes, because Chameli is getting disturbed, ad her health is deteriorating because of the dance lessons being conducted by Jalebi Bai.
• No, because Jalebi Bai‘s interference is not unreasonable. It is just that Chameli is a sensitive plaintiff.
• No, because Jalebi Bai‘s interference is not unreasonable. It is just that Chameli is a sensitive plaintiff.

• Yes, because Tina sold it off without the consent of Anjali
• No, because the Pomeranian could not be taken out of Anjali’s possession because it was not in Anjali’s possession at that time
•  No, because the Pomeranian was in Tina’s possession, and therefore, Tina had absolute right over it
•  No, because the Pomeranian was in Tina’s possession, and therefore, Tina had absolute right over it

 Tanvi and Ashrita were residents of Jahnvi Devi Society. Ashrita has been into the habit of practising Nitinnatyam before sunrise each morning since the past 25 years. She plays loud dance beats in her music system each morning to help her practice. The loud noise emanating from her music system disturbs Tanvi who is woken up each morning due to the sound. After putting up with this for 25 years, Tanvi finally decides she can take it no more and decides to sue Ashrita for nuisance.

Principle: Whoever causes unreasonable interference to the right of another over his property and space is causing nuisance.

• Ashrita is liable because her dance practice cause unreasonable interference with Tanvi’s sleep.
•  Ashrita is liable because she could easily choose some other time of the day.
• Ashrita is not liable because she has been doing this for over 20 years, and has now acquired a prescriptive right to continue with it unchallenged
• Ashrita is not liable because she has been doing this for over 20 years, and has now acquired a prescriptive right to continue with it unchallenged

Principle: 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 consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.

Avantik gives his gold chain to Nikhil, a jeweller, for repairs. Nikhil carries it to his shop. After the gold chain have been repaired, Avantik defaults on the payment. Nikhil refuses to deliver back the gold chain, retains them lawfully as a security for the debt. Avantik, who was aware that Nikhil was retaining the gold chain as a security for his debt, enters the shop openly, and takes the gold chain by force out of Nikhil’s possession, and takes it away. Has Avantik committed theft?

• Yes, because he, with dishonest intention, takes the gold chain out of Nikhil’s possession, with the intention of depriving Nikhil of the property as a security for his debt.
• Yes, because the gold chain are in Nikhil’s possession, therefore, Nikhil is their rightful owner.
• No, because the gold chain belong to Avantik.
• No, because the gold chain belong to Avantik.

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.

Prateek, who is Prakha’s younger brother, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill Sachan, who is Prakha’s boyfriend. Prakha, not knowing how to react, and seeing Sachan helpless and on the verge of being murdered, hits on Prateek’s head with an antique metal vase. Prateek dies on the spot. Can Prakha claim the right of private defence of body?

Principle 1: Every person has a right to defend his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

Principle 2: The right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence reasonably causes the apprehension that death, or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. Also, if the assault is with the intention of committing rape, gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting, or wrongfully confining a person under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release, he will have the right of private defence of the body extending to causing of death.

Principle 3: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act.

• No, because Prateek is guilty of no offence since he was of unsound mind.
• Yes, because she was under the apprehension that Prateek will murder Sachan.
• No, because Sachan was being killed, and not Prakha herself. And since this “private” defence and not “public” defence, only the victim can avail of this defence, and no one else.
• No, because Sachan was being killed, and not Prakha herself. And since this “private” defence and not “public” defence, only the victim can avail of this defence, and no one else.

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: Ramchandra 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.

• A pending suit 
• A pending list of suspects
•  A pending show-cause notice
•  A pending show-cause notice

• British Constitution
• US Constitution
•  Irish Constitution
•  Irish Constitution

Principle: A principal is liable for all the acts of the agent which he does in his capacity as an agent.

Facts: A Bollywood actor turned producer Balwan Khan makes a movie ‘MAA ONE’, he takes loan from a money lender Mr. Danjay Sutt, the film releases and as expected is a flop, the producer could not return the money, Danjay Sutt does not goes through the legal channel but asks Kancha Cheena to recover the debt on his behalf. In the process of recovery Kancha Cheena damages the property and manhandles Balwan Khan. Balwan Khan files case against Danjay Sutt. The money lender says he was ignorant of the collection tactics of Kancha Cheena, Is he liable in case?

• No he is not liable, as the act was done without the permission of Danjay Sutt.
• No as Kancha Cheena was not an agent, and was a goon.
•  Yes as Kancha Cheena was appointed to recover money by Danjay Sutt.
•  Yes as Kancha Cheena was appointed to recover money by Danjay Sutt.