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

When a civil suit reaches the stage of hearing and examination of witnesses,

  1. the plaintiff has the right to begin

  2. if the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that on some additional facts alleged by the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, the defendant has the right to begin

  3. Both (1) and (2)

  4. Neither (1) nor (2)
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC, the plaintiff has the right to begin at the hearing stage. However, under Order 18 Rule 2, if the defendant admits the plaintiff's facts but claims additional facts defeat the plaintiff's case (confession and avoidance), the defendant has the right to begin. Both statements are correct.

Multiple choice

Consider the following statements. Admissions for forming the basis of judgment may be secured from the opposite party to a civil suit by way of notice

(i) of admission of the case (ii) to admit documents (iii) to admit facts

Which of the statements given above are correct?

  1. None of these

  2. All of these

  3. Only (i) and (ii)

  4. Only (ii) and (iii)
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

Under Order 12 CPC, admissions can be secured by three types of notices: (i) notice of admission of case (Order 12 Rule 1), (ii) notice to admit documents (Order 12 Rule 2), and (iii) notice to admit facts (Order 12 Rule 3). All three methods are valid CPC provisions for obtaining admissions from the opposite party.

Multiple choice

Which of the following statements is incorrect?

  1. Where issues both of law and of fact arise and if the court is of opinion that the case may be disposed of on an issue relating to jurisdiction, it may postpone the settlement of other issues until after the issue of jurisdiction has been determined.

  2. Where a suit may be disposed of on preliminary issue, the court need not pronounce judgment on other issues settled in the case.

  3. The preliminary issue may relate to a bar the suit created by law for the time being in force.

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

The incorrect statement is B. Under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, where a suit can be disposed of on a preliminary issue (like jurisdiction or bar created by law), the court MUST still pronounce judgment on ALL issues finally settled, including preliminary issues. Option A is correct (jurisdiction issues can be decided first), C is correct (preliminary issues include legal bars), and D merely confirms the question.

Multiple choice

Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. Where on the death of a defendant the right to sue survivers against the other surviving defendant alone, the case may proceed against the surviving defendant.

  2. Where on the death of a defendant the right to sue does not survive against the other surviving defendant alone, the case shall abate against the deceased defendant it no application is made within the time limited by law for the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party.

  3. There shall be no abatement by reason of death of either party between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncing of the judgment.

  4. All of these
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

Order 22 Rule 1 CPC provides for substitution of legal representatives when a defendant dies. If right to sue survives against remaining defendants, case proceeds against them alone (Option A). If right does not survive, case abates unless application is made within time limit for legal representative to be made party (Option B). Order 23 Rule 1 states no abatement occurs between conclusion of hearing and pronouncing judgment (Option C). All three statements correctly reflect CPC provisions on death of parties.

Multiple choice

In the context of withdrawal of suit, which is the correct statement?

  1. If the Court is satisfied that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, the plaintiff may be allowed to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter.

  2. If the plaintiff withdraws from a suit without permission of the court he may bring fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter.

  3. If there are more than one plaintiffs, one of them may withdraw the suit without the consent of other plaintiffs.

  4. All of these
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

Order 23 Rule 1 CPC allows withdrawal of suit with liberty to file fresh suit when court is satisfied that suit must fail due to formal defect. This prevents injustice from technical defects. Withdrawal without court permission (Option B) bars fresh suit under Order 23 Rule 1(3). When there are multiple plaintiffs, consent of all is required unless court allows otherwise. Option A alone correctly states the law on withdrawal with liberty.

Multiple choice

The leave may be granted by the civil court to deliver interrogatories

  1. only to the defendant since the plaintiff is the master of the suit

  2. even if they relate to matters not in question in the suit

  3. not withstanding the objection taken by the opposite party

  4. if it considers the same necessary for disposing of the case fairly
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

Order 11 Rule 2 CPC empowers court to grant leave to deliver interrogatories if it considers this necessary for fair disposal of case. The court exercises discretion based on case needs, not rigid rules about which party may seek them (A is wrong). Interrogatories must relate to matters in question (B is wrong). Court can grant leave despite objections if justified. Option D correctly captures the discretionary nature of this power.

Multiple choice

A decree becomes final when

  1. it conclusively determines the rights of the parties

  2. no appeal has been preferred against the decree

  3. Both (1) and (2)

  4. Neither (1) nor (2)
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Section 2(2) CPC defines 'decree' as formal expression of adjudication conclusively determining rights of parties with respect to matters in controversy. A preliminary decree that does not finally determine rights is not a 'decree'. For a decree to be final, it must both conclusively determine rights AND be unappealable (appeal period exhausted or no appeal filed). Option C correctly combines both requirements.

Multiple choice

Which is the correct statement in context of summary procedure for civil suits?

  1. May be invoked for recovery of a liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant arising out a written contract

  2. May be applied suo motu by any civil court in its discretion is the interest of expeditions adjudication

  3. Requires the defendant to seek leave to defend which, if granted, must be unconditional

  4. All these statements are not correct
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

Order 37 CPC provides summary procedure for suits to recover liquidated demand based on written contract, dishonored negotiable instrument, or trust recoverable by trustee. Option A correctly states one such ground. Summary procedure is not suo motu - defendant must seek leave to defend (B is wrong). Leave to defend may be conditional or unconditional (C is wrong). Option A alone correctly states the law under Order 37.

Multiple choice

Inadequacy of consideration is relevant in determining the question of

  1. fraud

  2. misrepresentation

  3. undue influence

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

Inadequacy of consideration alone does not vitiate a contract. However, it may be relevant in determining whether there was free consent when combined with other factors. The law presumes parties are the best judges of value, so inadequacy is relevant only as part of a broader consent analysis.

Multiple choice

An agency can be terminated by

  1. the principle revoking his authority

  2. the agent renouncing the business of agency

  3. either the principle or agent dying

  4. All of these
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

Agency relationships can terminate multiple ways: by the principal revoking authority (Section 203), by the agent renouncing the business (Section 204), or by death of either party (Section 209). Option D correctly recognizes that all three are valid modes of termination.

Multiple choice

Which of the following qualifies to be treated as “Fact” within the meaning assigned to it under the Evidence Act?

  1. That a man heard or saw something.

  2. That a man holds a certain opinion.

  3. That a man acts in good faith.

  4. All of these
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

Under the Evidence Act, 'fact' encompasses a broad range of information including physical occurrences (what a person saw or heard), mental states (opinions a person holds), and behavioral states (whether a person acted in good faith). All three options - sensory perceptions, opinions, and good faith actions - qualify as facts within the statutory meaning. The Act's definition is comprehensive and inclusive.

Multiple choice

According to the Evidence Act, a fact is said to be “not proved”, when the

  1. court believes that the fact does not exist

  2. fact is vague

  3. fact is neither proved nor disproved

  4. All of these
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, a fact is 'not proved' when it remains in a state of uncertainty - neither established by evidence nor disproved. This is distinct from 'disproved' (shown not to exist) or 'proved' (established by evidence). The court has formed no belief either way about the fact's existence or non-existence. 'Not proved' represents the middle ground where evidence is insufficient.

Multiple choice

Which of the statement given below is/are correct?

  1. In civil cases, the character to prove the conduct imputed to a party is not relevant.

  2. In criminal proceedings bad character of the accused is not relevant, unless evidence of good character has been given.

  3. In criminal proceedings previous conviction of accused is relevant as evidence of bad character.

  4. All of these
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

In civil cases, character evidence to prove conduct imputed to a party is generally irrelevant as civil liability depends on facts, not character. In criminal proceedings, the accused's bad character is irrelevant unless good character evidence has been introduced first, and previous convictions are relevant as evidence of bad character. All three statements correctly reflect the Evidence Act's character evidence rules.

Multiple choice

‘A’ is on trial for the murder of ‘C’. There is evidence to show that ‘C’ was murdered by ‘A’ and ‘B’, and that ‘B’ said – ‘A’ and I murdered ‘C’. As against ‘A’, this evidence is

  1. not to be taken into consideration as the evidence is hearsay

  2. to be taken in to consideration as it is direct

  3. not to be taken into consideration as ‘A’ and ‘B’ are not being jointly tried

  4. to be taken into consideration as ‘A’ and ‘B’ are accomplices
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

A co-accused's statement implicating another accused is admissible only when they are tried jointly. When A and B are tried separately, B's confession 'A and I murdered C' becomes hearsay evidence against A and cannot be used to establish A's guilt. This rule prevents one accused from effectively becoming a prosecution witness against another without the safeguards of a joint trial where both can cross-examine each other.