Principles:

A. Whoever intending to take any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property out of his or her possession, is said to commit theft.

B. A person who, without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property shall be guilty of causing criminal damage.

C. Damage means any impairment of the value of a property.

Facts:

Draupadi, an old lady of 85 years, used to live with her granddaughter Subhadra. Draupadi was ill and therefore bedridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Subhadra hired a cleaner, Vinodji, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Draupadi had stacked in a corner of her room. Vinodji asked Subhadra if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Vinodji took the pile to the municipality rubbish dump. While Vinodji was sorting and throwing away the newspapers, he was very surprised to find a beautiful painting in between two sheets of paper. He thought that Subhadra probably wouldn’t want this old painting back, especially because it was torn in several places and the colour was fading. He took the painting home, mounted it on a wooden frame and hung it on the wall of his bedroom. Unknown to him, the painting was an old ‘masterpiece, and worth twenty thousand rupees. Before mounting the painting, Vinodji pasted it on a plain sheet of paper so that it does not tear any more. By doing so, he made its professional ‘restoration very difficult and thereby reduced its value by half. Vinodji’s neighbour Champi discovered that the painting belonged to Subhadra. With the motive of returning the painting to Subhadra, Champi climbed through an open window into Vinodji’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.

Which of the following propositions could be inferred from the facts and the rules specified

•  Champi is guilty of criminal damage as the person she took the painting from (Vinodji) was not its lawful owner.
• Champi is guilty of criminal damage as she took the painting without Vinodji’s consent
• Champi is not guilty of criminal damage as the painting has not been completely destroyed.
• Champi is not guilty of criminal damage as the painting has not been completely destroyed.

• Criminal Procedure Code
• Civil Procedure Code
• Constitution of India
• Constitution of India

• Rajiv Chanda cannot be prosecuted again.
• He can be prosecuted since there is fresh evidence against him.
•  He cannot be prosecuted as his grandfather was the chief of Army.
•  He cannot be prosecuted as his grandfather was the chief of Army.

Principles:

A. A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor’s property, the age of majority is twenty-one.

B. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.

C. In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.

Facts:
Animesh convinces Kumud, a girl aged 18 that she would sell her land to him. Kumud’s mother Parineeti is her guardian. Nonetheless Kumud, without the permission of Parineeti, sells the land to Animesh for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Parineeti challenges this transaction claiming the Kumud is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Animesh. Thus Animesh is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Kumud.

Why is Parineeti justified in challenging the sale transaction?

• Kumud is of unsound mind and is not in a position to make rational decisions.
• Though Kumud is eighteen year old, she will be treated as a minor, as Parineeti is her guardian
• Though Kumud is eighteen year old, she cannot sell the land without the permission of her mother.
• Though Kumud is eighteen year old, she cannot sell the land without the permission of her mother.

Principles:

A. A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor’s property, the age of majority is twenty-one.

B. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.

C. In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.

Facts:
Animesh convinces Kumud, a girl aged 18 that she would sell her land to him. Kumud’s mother Parineeti is her guardian. Nonetheless Kumud, without the permission of Parineeti, sells the land to Animesh for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Parineeti challenges this transaction claiming the Kumud is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Animesh. Thus Animesh is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Kumud.

Animesh can be allowed to recover the money only if he can show that-

• He was deceived by Kumud who misrepresented her age
• He honestly believed that Kumud was empowered under the law to sell the land.
•  He was an honest person who had paid the full price of the land to Kumud.
•  He was an honest person who had paid the full price of the land to Kumud.

Principles:

A. A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor’s property, the age of majority is twenty-one.

B. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.

C. In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the other party was deceived by the minor to hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that the minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.

Facts:
Animesh convinces Kumud, a girl aged 18 that she would sell her land to him. Kumud’s mother Parineeti is her guardian. Nonetheless Kumud, without the permission of Parineeti, sells the land to Animesh for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Parineeti challenges this transaction claiming the Kumud is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Animesh. Thus Animesh is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Kumud.

In order to defend the sale, Kumud will need to show that-

•  Kumud has attained the age of majority.
• Kumud is mature enough to make rational decisions regarding her own affairs.
• The sale transaction was beneficial to her interest and will enhance her financial status. 
• The sale transaction was beneficial to her interest and will enhance her financial status. 

187. Which of the following is correct?

• Animesh should be allowed to recover the money because even though there is no contract, Kumud and Parineeti should not be allowed to unjustly benefit from Animesh’s money.
• Animesh should be allowed the possession of the land because Parineeti can always decide to approve the transaction between Animesh and Kumud
• Animesh should not be allowed to recover because he induced Kumud, a minor, to sell the land.
• Animesh should not be allowed to recover because he induced Kumud, a minor, to sell the land.

• If Animesh is allowed to recover the money, that will defeat the law framed for protecting the minors against fraudulent persons.
• If Animesh is not allowed to recover that will cause him injustice as he has not paid off the entire sale price
• If Animesh is allowed to recover, Parineeti will benefit from both the money and the land.
• If Animesh is allowed to recover, Parineeti will benefit from both the money and the land.

• Affray
• Illegal Gratification
• Bribery
• Bribery

Sajjan Singh, advanced money to his step-son, Ghantilal while Ghantilal was a minor. Ghantilal, however, looks upon Sajjan Singh as his own father. When Ghantilal came of age, Sajjan Singh obtained, by misuse of parental influence, from Ghantilal, a bond for a greater amount than the sum due in respect of the advance. The contract clearly appears to be unconscionable. Upon whom will the burden of proof rest to prove the element of undue influence?

Principle: 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.

• The burden of proof will rest on Ghantilal.
• The burden of proof will rest on Sajjan Singh.
•  Undue influence has not been exercised at all because, in India, we consider it our duty to obey our parents.
•  Undue influence has not been exercised at all because, in India, we consider it our duty to obey our parents.