Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Legal Principle: ‘Gift' means a transfer of certain existing property made voluntarily and without consideration, by a donor, to a donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee during the lifetime of the donor.
Facts: Amit executed a gift deed for property ‘X’ in favour of Sooraj, who happened to be Amit’s loyal servant’s son settled in the U.S. Two months thereafter, Amit died without leaving a will regarding his assets. Amit’s children initiated steps to partition his entire property, including property ‘X’ among themselves. At that time, Sooraj came to India, and learning about the gift, claimed the property ‘X’.
Options
Sooraj can legally get the property ‘X’, as soon as he gets to know about the gift.
Sooraj cannot legally claim the property ‘X’ because, the children of Amit have already initiated steps for partition.
Sooraj can claim the property ‘X’, because, his acceptance of the gift is implicit by his conduct of claiming the property as soon as he came to know about the gift.
Sooraj apparently did not comply with the essential requirements of a gift and hence, the entire property including property 'X', can be partitioned among the children of Amit.
Advertisements
Solution
Sooraj apparently did not comply with the essential requirements of a gift and hence, the entire property including property 'X', can be partitioned among the children of Amit.
Explanation:
Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882, the gift is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Acceptance -Acceptance of the gift after its execution is a legal requirement and Donee must accept the gift during the lifetime of the donor. In case the donee fails to accept the gift, it is rendered invalid. The acceptance may be validated by acts such as taking possession of the property. According to the explanation given above acceptance of Sooraj for the gift was a legal requirement, to be fulfilled within the lifetime of Amit, however, in the case presented to us this requirement was not fulfilled and hence Sooraj cannot claim the property "X" and it can be distributed among the children of Amit. Thus option (4) is the correct answer.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
A owns a residential flat. He is entitled to a quiet possession and enjoyment of his property. This is called
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE Contract is an agreement freely entered into between the parties. But when consent to an agreement is obtained by undue influence, the contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained.
FACTUAL SITUATION The Pragya had been worked for a businessman Anurag since the age of 18, working for a range of Anurag's businesses. In 2000, (aged 21) Pragya purchased a flat. In 2005, Mr. Anurag's business was facing financial difficulties, and he asked Pragya to offer up her flat as a financial security against an overdraft facility for the business. In July of that year, the.banks solicitors wrote to Pragya, advising that she should take independent legal advice before putting her property up as a security for the debt. The bank also notified Pragya that the guarantee was unlimited in both time and financial amount. Having discussed the arrangement with Anurag, Pragya was unaware of the extent of the borrowing but was assured that her mortgage would not be called upon and that his own properties which were also used as security would be looked at first. A charge was executed over the Pragya's property in August 2005. In 2009, Mr. Anurag's business went into liquidation and the bank formally demanded ₹ 60 24,912 from Pragya. Pragya raised the defence of undue Influence - stating that Mr. Anurag had induced her to enter into the agreement, and the bank had full knowledge/notice of this undue influence which should set aside the bank's right to enforce the debt recovery against Pragya. The bank is contending that there is no undue influence.
assume it is a case of undue influence. Decide whether the bank has done enough to allay concerns of undue influence?
From the four answers given below, Choose the appropriate answer.
All contracts are agreements. All agreements are accepted offers. Which of the following derivation is correct?
The decision of a High Court is
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: A contract requires a proposal and acceptance of the proposal. It is necessary to make a binding contract, not only that the proposal be accepted, but also that the acceptance is notified to the proposer.
Factual Situation:
A sent a letter to B stating that he was willing to sell to B, 10 bags of rice at ₹20/- each. B sent an e-mail to the address mentioned in the letter-head, accepting the offer.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: Damages are payable for breach of contract and the purpose of damages is to compensate him for the loss suffered and not to improve his position more than what it would have been if the contract had been duly performed.
Facts: A wanted to buy a house and he contracted with a surveyor S to inspect a particular house and value it for him. S surveyed the house and valued it for Rs. 10 lakhs. S, however, failed to notice the defective plumbing system in the house, and had he taken note of it, the house would have been worth only Rs. 8 lakhs. A followed S's advice and bought the house for Rs. 8 lakhs and thereafter spent Rs. 4 lakhs for repairing the plumbing system. He filed a suit against S claiming Rs. 4 lakhs as damages
LEGAL PRINCIPLES: A contract is an agreement enforceable by law.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Amita invited Bina to her house for dinner. Bina accepted the invitation but later did not go. On Bina's failure to attend, Amita filed a suit against Bina for the price of non-consumed food. Will the law enforce this agreement?
DECISION:
Consists of legal proposition(s)/ principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of the law.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: Every agreement, of which the object or consideration is opposed to public policy, is void. An agreement that has the tendency to injure public interest or public welfare is one against public policy. What constitutes an injury to the public interest or public welfare would depend upon the times and the circumstances.
Facts: 'A' promises to obtain for 'B' employment in the public service, and 'B' promises to pay rupees 5,00,000/- to 'A'.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle:
1. The battery is the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent.
2. When lawfully exercising the power of arrest or some other statutory power a police officer had greater rights than an ordinary citizen to restrain another.
Factual Situation: Two police officers on duty in a police car observed two women in the street who appeared to be soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. One of the women was known to the police as a prostitute but the other, X, was not a known prostitute. When the police officers requested X to get into the car for questioning she refused to do so and instead walked away from the car. One of the officers, a policewoman, got out of the car and followed X in order to question her regarding her identity and conduct and to caution her, if she was suspected of being a prostitute, in accordance with the approved police procedure for administering cautions for suspicious behaviour before charging a woman with being a prostitute. X refused to speak to the policewoman and walked away, whereupon the policewoman took hold of X's arm to detain her. X then swore at the policewoman and scratched the officer's arm with her fingernails. X was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty. She appealed against the conviction, contending that when the assault occurred the officer was not exercising her power of arrest and was acting beyond the scope of her duty in detaining X by taking hold of her arm. The police contended that the officer was acting in the execution of her duty when the assault occurred because the officer had good cause to detain X for the purpose of questioning her to see whether a caution for suspicious behaviour should be administered. Decide whether the police officer is liable for battery.
Decision:
Principle: When, at the desire of one person, any other person has done or abstained from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.
Facts: X, the uncle of Y, made a promise to pay him an amount of ₹1,00,000/- as a reward if Y quits smoking and drinking within one year. Y quit smoking and drinking within six months.
