Law Legal Studies · Civics Polity

Legal Principles and Doctrines

2,539 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 certilicate of registration of a trade union is:

  1. Rebuttable evidence

  2. Irrebuttable evidence

  3. Conclusive evidence

  4. None at the above
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Under the Trade Unions Act, a certificate of registration is CONCLUSIVE evidence that the registration requirements have been complied with. This means it cannot be challenged in court on procedural grounds - the registration is valid once the certificate is issued.

Multiple choice

Which one of the following pail-s is correctly matched in the maxim “Injuria sine damno” in the code: (a) actionable per se (b) not actionable (c) actionable on proof of damage (d) actionable on violation of legal right

  1. ab

  2. cb

  3. cd

  4. ad
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

The maxim 'Injuria sine damno' means injury without damage - where a legal right is violated even without actual loss. It has two key meanings: (a) it is actionable per se (no need to prove damage), and (d) it is actionable upon violation of legal right. The correct pairing is 'ad' meaning both elements characterize this maxim - actionable per se and actionable on violation of legal right. These are complementary aspects, not contradictory ones.

Multiple choice

Which of the following paws is not correctly matched'?

  1. Distinction between de facto and de jure recognition is political - The Arantzaju Mendi's Case

  2. Status of customary international law in England Maclaine Watson's Case

  3. Treaty making power of the central executive - Shrikrishna Sharma Vs. State of Vest Bengal

  4. Binding character of an arbitral award - Maganbhai lshwarbhai Vs. Union of India
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Multiple choice

Which of the following statements is true in relation to abetment of an offence?

  1. It is not necessary that the offence abetted has been committed

  2. There is no question of abetment unless the, offence abetted has been committed

  3. That to prove offence of abetment it is necessary to prove that the abettor has extended helping hand in the commission of the offence

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

Option A is correct. Under Section 107 IPC, abetment is complete when the act is abetted - it's not necessary that the offence abetted has actually been committed. Abetment is a distinct offence that can exist independently of the commission of the principal offence. Option B is wrong because abetment doesn't require completion. Option C incorrectly suggests a 'helping hand' must be proven, which isn't required under law.

Multiple choice

What is the meaning of per incurium?

  1. A decision which ignores a statute on the subject

  2. A decision which ignores the case law on the subject

  3. A decision which ignores the constitution on the subject

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

Per incurium, literally translated as "through lack of care", refers to a judgment of a court which has been decided without reference to a statutory provision or earlier judgment which would have been relevant.

Multiple choice

For an action of nuisance defendant can put up the following defence. (i) The place is suitable for the purpose. (ii) It is for the benefit of the residents of the locality. (iii) It is done under statutory authority. (iv) Plaintiff has consented to the act. Of the above statement:

  1. (i), (ii) and (iii) are correct

  2. (ii), (iii) and (iv) are correct

  3. (i), (iii) and (iv) are correct

  4. (iii) and (iv) are correct
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

For nuisance, statutory authority (iii) is a complete defense - if authorized by law, it cannot be nuisance. Consent by plaintiff (iv) is also a valid defense - volenti non fit injuria. However, 'suitability for purpose' (i) is NOT a defense - doing something suitable in the wrong place can still be nuisance. 'Benefit to residents' (ii) is NOT a defense - public benefit does not negate private nuisance.

Multiple choice

The term MALFEASANCE applies to:

  1. the commission of an unlawful act

  2. the improper performance of some lawful act

  3. the failure to form some act for which there is an obligation to perform

  4. A, B and C all are correct
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

Malfeasance refers to the commission of an unlawful act - it is the doing of an act that is legally wrongful. This distinguishes it from misfeasance (improper performance of a lawful act) and non-feasance (failure to perform an act when there is a duty to act). Malfeasance involves active wrongdoing rather than passive failure or improper execution.

Multiple choice

Res Ipsa loquitur means:

  1. as you sow, you reap

  2. guilty shall be punished

  3. the thing speaks for itself

  4. the guilty speaks lies
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Res Ipsa Loquitur means 'the thing speaks for itself' - a legal doctrine where negligence can be inferred from the very nature of an accident, even without direct evidence of negligent conduct. It applies when the accident would not normally occur without negligence, the instrumentality was under defendant's control, and plaintiff did not contribute to the incident.

Multiple choice

Res ipsa Loquitur is:

  1. weapon of defence

  2. weapon of offence

  3. a defence of some factor which was beyond the control of the person who caused injury

  4. a dangerous weapon
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Multiple choice

The exercise of ordinary rights for a lawful purpose and in a lawful manner is no wrong even if it causes damage. This is known as

  1. Volenti non fit injuria

  2. Injuria sine damnum

  3. Damnum sine injuria

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

Damnum sine injuria refers to damage or loss without infringement of legal rights. When someone exercises their ordinary lawful rights, even if it causes harm to another, it is not legally wrong because no legal right has been violated. This distinguishes lawful acts causing harm from wrongful acts causing injury to legal rights.

Multiple choice

In which of the following statement “Undue Influence” does not exist:

  1. When dominating party holds real or apparent authority

  2. When a person's mental capacity is affected because of bodily distress

  3. When a person threatens another to commit suicide

  4. When the party holds fiduciary relationship
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

Undue influence requires unfair pressure from a dominating position. Bodily distress affecting mental capacity does not constitute undue influence - it may affect consent through other doctrines (like incapacity), but undue influence specifically requires one party to dominate the will of another through real or apparent authority, fiduciary relationship, or similar power imbalance. Threatening suicide would be coercion, not undue influence.

Multiple choice

When the court declares certain provisions of the Act invalid, it does not affect the validity of the Act and it remains the same. The principle is known as

  1. doctrine of prospective over ruling

  2. doctrine of severability

  3. doctrine of pleasure

  4. doctrine of eclipse
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

Doctrine of severability or separability states that when a part of the statute/act is declared unconstitutional, then the unconstitutional part is to be removed and the remaining valid portion will continue to valid.