Important Questions of Legal - Aptitude and Reasoning Legal Aptitude | Zigya

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.
Advertisement

 Multiple Choice QuestionsMultiple Choice Questions

Advertisement
131.

PRINCIPLE 1: An agreement entered into with a minor is void ab initio. Any agreement entered into with a major is valid.

PRINCIPLE 2: A minor is anyone who is below 15 years of age.

PRINCIPLE 3: A contract is incomplete without consideration.

FACTS: Rebecca was born in 1997 in a small town in Karnataka. She is from an affluent family, but her parents are very strict and don’t give her enough pocket money to meet her expenses. Hence, she has to manage her income in other ways. On one occasion, she enters into an agreement with Uncle Mario, her father’s friend, to sell her old cell phone, which is perfect working condition. Mario hands over Rs. 2000 in advance as consideration for the deal. Is the contract entered into between the two valid?

  • No, because an advance payment is not sufficient consideration
  • Yes, because all the elements of a valid contract are present
  • No, because Rebecca is below 18 years of age
  • No, because Rebecca is below 18 years of age
25 Views

132.

PRINCIPLE: The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds of gender, caste, religion, race, etc

FACTS: Kalindi Bhonsle was born and brought up in Sholapur, Maharashtra. She seeked admission in the State-run University in Karnataka, which specialized in Interior Designing. She was refused admission in the said University by the authorities, since the University only admitted residents of the State of Maharashtra. Is the University guilty of discrimination?

  • Yes, Kalindi was discriminated against
  • No, there was no discrimination
  • No, and Kalindi cannot question the authority of the University
  • No, and Kalindi cannot question the authority of the University
26 Views

133.

PRINCIPLE: The owner of a place is responsible for its maintenance.

FACTS: Silver’s Gym is owned by James Silver and the gym has many members, including Rohan. One day, while running on the treadmill, the belt gets stuck and since, Rohan was running on a high speed, the sudden break causes him to fall and hit his head on the dumbbells lying nearby, thereby causing him head injuries. James Silver blames the accident on the manufacturer of the gym equipment. Can he escape liability?

  •  Yes, it was the equipment manufacturer’s fault entirely
  • Yes, it was Rohan’s fault that he was running at such a high speed
  •  No, James is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of Silver’s gym
  •  No, James is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of Silver’s gym
25 Views

134.

PRINCIPLE: A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership.

FACTS: Aditya, Ravi and Suraj enter into a partnership to open a restaurant, Golden Harvest in Mumbai. Initially the restaurant does good business, but after a year, owing to staff shortage, the quality of food starts deteriorating. People start criticizing the restaurant and their business reduces significantly. There comes a day when they are forced to shut down their restaurant, and end their partnership. Following this, Ravi goes to Seth Karodimal to borrow some money on the pretext of re-opening his restaurant. However, he runs away with the money. Seth Karodimal sues Aditya and Suraj for the money. Decide.

  • Aditya and Suraj are not under any obligation to pay the Seth
  • Aditya and Suraj are not liable to pay because it was not their fault that Ravi ran off
  • Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partners
  • Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partners
29 Views

Advertisement
135.

 PRINCIPLE 1: In wrongful restraint, a person is prevented from proceeding in some particular direction though free to go elsewhere.
PRINCIPLE 2: In wrongful confinement, there is restraint from proceeding in all directions beyond a certain area.

FACTS: Himmat Singh used to go to office and back home via the same route everyday. He was a man of habit and did not like changes, of any sort. During the Diwali season, some shopkeepers set up tents on the road and sold lamps, colored powder and sweets in their stalls. These stalls were set up outside concrete shops and encroached upon the pavement and some part of the road. When Himmat Singh was returning from his office, his path was obstructed by one such stall on the street. He started yelling at the owner of the first stall he saw. This stall was set up by Taakat Singh, and soon there was a huge fight between Himmat and Taakat. Finally, Himmat had to take a detour. However, Taakat was angered by his actions and followed him home. He then sent some goons after Himmat Singh who threatened him that they would shoot him if he left his house.

The act of the stall owner blocking Himmat Singh’s path is a case of-

  • Wrongful Confinement
  • Threatening
  •  Harassment
  •  Harassment
26 Views

136.

PRINCIPLE 1: In wrongful restraint, a person is prevented from proceeding in some particular direction though free to go elsewhere.
PRINCIPLE 2: In wrongful confinement, there is restraint from proceeding in all directions beyond a certain area.

FACTS: Himmat Singh used to go to office and back home via the same route everyday. He was a man of habit and did not like changes, of any sort. During the Diwali season, some shopkeepers set up tents on the road and sold lamps, colored powder and sweets in their stalls. These stalls were set up outside concrete shops and encroached upon the pavement and some part of the road. When Himmat Singh was returning from his office, his path was obstructed by one such stall on the street. He started yelling at the owner of the first stall he saw. This stall was set up by Taakat Singh, and soon there was a huge fight between Himmat and Taakat. Finally, Himmat had to take a detour. However, Taakat was angered by his actions and followed him home. He then sent some goons after Himmat Singh who threatened him that they would shoot him if he left his house.

In the above question, the sending instance, involving the goons who threatened Himmat Singh against leaving the house is a case of-

  • Wrongful Restraint
  • Wrongful Confinement
  • Harassment
  • Harassment
25 Views

137.

 PRINCIPLE: Any agreement in absolute restraint of the marriage of any person is void.

FACTS: Zoya and Benazir are both married to Azhar. He dies in October 2012, reducing them both to the status of co-widows. When Azhar’s will is read out, they discover a clause which states that if either of the co-widows remarry, they would be deemed to have forfeited their claim to any property or maintenance. However, Benazir gets married in February, 2013 and claims her share of maintenance and property, from Azhar’s lawyer, claiming that any clause in restraint of marriage is void. Hence, she should be entitled to maintenance. Decide.

  • The clause in the will is valid and Benazir is not entitled to any maintenance
  • The clause is void, by virtue of being in restraint of marriage
  •  Zoya should be given the authority to decide whether Benazir can claim maintenance or not
  •  Zoya should be given the authority to decide whether Benazir can claim maintenance or not
28 Views

138.

PRINCIPLE: No person shall be convicted of any offence except violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of an act that has been classified as an offence nor be subjected to a greater penalty than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

FACTS: In the land of Abracadabra, committing murder is not an offence. However, the new government elected in 2010 made new laws. According to one of the new laws, commission of murder was an offence and was punishable with either life imprisonment or death sentence. Adil Shah was involved in a fight with one of his rivals, which led to the death of his rival. This incident occurred in 2009. A case was filed against him, which came to court in 2010. Following the new, the judges laid down that Adil Shah is guilty of murder. Decide.

  • The Court is wrong. Adil Shah is not guilty
  • Adil Shah should be given the death sentence
  • Adil Shah should be let off with a lighter punishment
  • Adil Shah should be let off with a lighter punishment
25 Views

Advertisement
139.

PRINCIPLE: India is a secular nation.

FACTS: Ram Krishna College for Engineering (RKCE) is run by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Immanuel Herbert Smith has passed his 12th Boards with distinction and is given a scholarship for higher education. He wants to pursue engineering in RKCE. Initially, he is given admission in the University. However, after a few days, the faculty and Dean of the University decide to rusticate him from college since they think that his religious beliefs and customs are very different from most of the other students, and this might create a ground for fights and harm the reputation of the college. Immanuel files a writ petition challenging this action of the administration. Will he succeed?

  • No, the University can do whatever it thinks is right
  • There should be separate institute for religious minorities
  • Yes, the decision of the college administration should be struck down
  • Yes, the decision of the college administration should be struck down
25 Views

140. PRINCIPLE 1: Bigamy is not permitted under Hindu Marriage Act.
PRINCIPLE 2: A Hindu person of sound mind can adopt a child of the gender they don’t already have a child of.
FACTS: Pritam is part of a Hindu Vaishnav family where all the male members have more than one wife. He married Sona in 2006 and has a son with her, called Pyaare. He then marries Mona in 2010 and they don’t have any children.
Is his marriage valid?
  • Only his marriage with Sona is valid
  • Only his marriage with Mona is valid
  • Both his marriages are valid since the Hindu Law does not apply to him
  • Both his marriages are valid since the Hindu Law does not apply to him
25 Views

Advertisement