Law Legal Studies · Civics Polity

Legal Principles and Doctrines

2,603 Questions

Legal principles and doctrines establish the foundational rules of jurisprudence and civil rights. Questions cover constitutional reasonable restrictions, courtroom evidence standards, and property laws. These topics are strictly necessary for law legal studies exams and judicial services prelims.

Constitutional doctrinesGuardianship rightsExpert testimony standardsCriminal trial instructionsContractual authorityRegistration law principles

Legal Principles and Doctrines Questions

Multiple choice

A voluntary confession is admissible in evidence

  1. when made to a police officer

  2. when made to a magistrate having competent jurisdiction

  3. when made to a village sarpanch with request to save him from police

  4. where it leads to no discovery of facts and is made to a police officer
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

Option (1) is incorrect: Confession made to a police officer, whether made voluntarily, is not deemed as made voluntarily. Hence, it is inadmissible. Option (2) is correct: Confession made before a magistrate having competent jurisdiction is admissible in evidence. Option (3) is incorrect: Confession made to a village sarpanch with request to save him from police is a confession made in lieu of promise. Hence, it is not made voluntarily and is inadmissible. Option (4) is incorrect: Confession made to a police officer, if leads to discovery of facts, is admissible in evidence.

Multiple choice

In which of the following cases can secondary evidence of the contents of a document not be given?

  1. When the original is a public document

  2. When the original has been destroyed

  3. When the original has been found to be inadmissible

  4. When the original is not easily movable
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Option (1) is incorrect: Under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, a secondary evidence can be given for public document in the form of certified copies. Option (2) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, a secondary evidence can be given by a person who has himself seen it, where the original has been destroyed. Option (3) is correct: Where the original document in itself is inadmissible in evidence, secondary evidence cannot be admissible. Option (4) is incorrect: When the original is not easily movable, a secondary evidence can be given in any manner under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Multiple choice

Which of the following is not true about the mode of proof for a will?

  1. At least one attesting witness is to be examined.

  2. It is necessary to call any attesting witness if will has not been registered.

  3. No proof is required if it is admitted by an heir of the executant.

  4. Where attesting witness is not found, handwriting of attesting witness and signature of executant must be proved.

  5. None of these
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Option (1) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, one attesting witness will always be required to be examined for the proof of a will. Option (2) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, whether will is registered or not, one attesting witness will always be required to be examined for the proof of a will. Option (3) is correct: Under the Indian Evidence Act, whether it is admitted by the heir, at least one attesting witness will always be required to be examined for the proof of a will. Option (4) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, if no such attesting witness can be found, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person. 

Multiple choice

A person who is summoned to produce a document, when produces the document,

  1. becomes a witness

  2. is cross-examined by both the parties

  3. is cross-examined with the permission of the court

  4. does not become a witness and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

Option (1) is incorrect: Under Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act, a person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it unless and until he is called as a witness.

Option (2) is incorrect: Under Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act, a person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness.

Option (3) is incorrect: Under Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act, a person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness.

Option (4) is correct: Under Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act, a person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness. 

Multiple choice

A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Which of the following is not admissible as evidence?

  1. Whatever was said by A or B or by slanders at the time of beating.

  2. A has an intention for murder of B.

  3. Marks on the ground of struggle between A to B.

  4. A is a man of bad character.

  5. None of these
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

Option (1) is incorrect: Whatever said by A or B or slanders is relevant as facts are the occasion of relevant facts.

Option (2) is incorrect: A’s intenion is relevant and admissible.

Option (3) is incorrect: 'Marks on the ground are the effects of the struggle' is relevant and admissible. Option (4) is correct: The character of a person is not relevant to adjudicate on the matter.

 

Multiple choice

A is accused of defaming B by publishing an imputation intended to harm the reputation of B. The fact of previous publications by A respecting B, showing ill-will on the part of A towards B, is relevant

  1. because it proves harming A's reputation

  2. as it is necessary to explain the fact in issue

  3. because it proves A's intention to harm B's reputation

  4. None of these
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Option (1) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, harm is the consequence of defamation. It is not relevant in evidence. Option (2) is incorrect: Under the Indian Evidence Act, facts in the given situation are not necessary to explain the fact in issue. Option (3) is correct: Under the Indian Evidence Act, it is relevant because the facts are proving A’s intention to harm B’s reputation.

Multiple choice

If in any case in which the defendant sets up counterclaim, the suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued or dismissed, the counterclaim

  1. shall be stayed

  2. nevertheless be proceeded with

  3. may be continued with the leave of the High court

  4. No specific provision
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

Option (1) is incorrect: Shall not be stayed

Option (2) is correct: Under Order VIII, Rule 6D of the CPC, if in any case in which the defendant sets up a counterclaim, the suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued or dismissed, the counterclaim may nevertheless be proceeded with.  Option (3) is incorrect: Can never be continued even with the leave of the High Court

Multiple choice

Any objection to answering any interrogatory may be taken on the ground that it is

  1. irrelevant

  2. scandalous

  3. not exhibited bona fide

  4. All or any of the above
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

Option (1) is incorrect: Any objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit may be taken in the affidavit in answer.

Option (2) is incorrect: Any objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit may be taken in the affidavit in answer.

Option (3) is incorrect: Any objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit may be taken in the affidavit in answer. Option (4) is correct: Any objection to answering any interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit may be taken in the affidavit in answer.

 

Multiple choice

On which of the following grounds can an aggrieved person not apply for a review of an order or judgement of a Civil Court?

  1. A decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred

  2. A decree or order passed in the absence of the aggrieved person

  3. A decree or order from which no appeal is allowed

  4. A decision on a reference from a court of small cause
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

Option (1) is incorrect: Under Section 114 of the CPC, an aggrieved person may apply for a review of an order or judgement of a civil court by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. Option (2) is correct: An aggrieved person cannot apply for a review of an order or judgement of a Civil Court by a decree or order is passed in the absence of the aggrieved person.

Option (3) is incorrect: Under Section 114 of the CPC, an aggrieved person may apply for a review of an order or judgement of a civil court by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed. Option (4) is incorrect: Under Section 114 of the CPC, an aggrieved person may apply for a review of an order or judgement of a civil court by a decision on a reference from a court of small cause.
 

Multiple choice

Where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called for hearing and where a part of the claim is admitted, the court shall

  1. dismiss the whole suit

  2. dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder

  3. pass the decree of the whole claim

  4. proceed ex-parte (proceedings) against the defendant
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

Option (1) is incorrect: The court shall not dismiss the whole suit.

Option (2) is correct: Under Order IX, Rule 8 of the CPC, where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed and where part only of the claim has been admitted, the court then shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder.

Option (3) is incorrect: The court shall not pass the decree of the whole claim. Option (4) is incorrect: The court shall not proceed ex-parte (proceedings) against defendant.
Multiple choice

A, a magistrate, is making report to a superior officer about B's character imputation made in good faith and for public good. A commits

  1. an offence under Section 500 of the IPC

  2. an offence under Section 501 of the IPC

  3. no offence as it is within the exception under Section 499 of the IPC

  4. an offence under Section 504 of the IPC
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Option (3) is correct: Exception under Section 499 states 'It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good'.  Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, then A is within the exception.

Multiple choice

Does federal law prohibit ex parte communications from private parties to administrative agency employees who are deciding whether to adopt a rule during notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings?

  1. Yes, because a reviewing court must have an adequate record before deciding whether an agency had adequate support for its rule.

  2. No, because section 53 is silent on the question of ex parte contracts.

  3. Yes, but only when the rulemaking resolves competing claims among a small group of claimants to a valuable governmental benefit.

  4. No, so long as the agency can demonstrate that the comment dealt only with policy questions and did not introduce new data.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

No, because section 53 is silent on the question of ex parte contracts.