Principle a Person is Entitled to Protect His Property by Using Lawful Means. Facts Ramlal is Growing Valuable Vegetables and Fruits on His Farm and He Has Fenced the Farm to Prevent the - Legal Reasoning


PRINCIPLE A person is entitled to protect his property by using lawful means.

FACTS Ramlal is growing valuable vegetables and fruits on his farm and he has fenced the farm to prevent the cattle from entering into it. In addition, he has kept a ferocious dog to chase away intruding urchins and catties. Some children were playing in a nearby playground and the ball slipped into the farm. A boy running after the ball came near the fence and shouted for the ball. But when there was no response, he managed to creep into the farm to get the ball. The dog which was surreptitiously waiting attacked the boy and badly mauled him. The boy's parents filed a suit against Ramlal.


  • Ramlal is not liable, since the fence and the dog are lawful means of protecting the property

  • Ramlal is not liable for the boy trespassing and getting badly injured in that process

  • Ramlal is liable since an ordinary barking dog would have sufficed for the purpose

  • None of the above



Ramlal is not liable since the fence and the dog are lawful means of protecting the property


According to the principle, Ramlal is not liable as Ramlal is entitled to protect his property by using lawful means. Protecting the firm by keeping a ferocious dog is legally permissible. 

Concept: Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?


The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:

Principle: There are legal provisions to give authority to a person to use necessary force against an assailant or wrong­doer for the purpose of protecting one’s own body and property as also another’s body and property when immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available; and in so doing he is not answerable in law for his deeds.

Facts: X, a rich man was taking his morning walk. Due to the threat of robbers in the locality, he was carrying his pistol also. In the opposite direction, another person was coming with a ferocious-looking dog. All of a sudden, the dog which was on a chain held by the owner, started barking at X. The owner of the dog called the dog to be calm. Th ey crossed each other without any problem. But suddenly, the dog started barking again from a distance. X immediately took out his pistol. By seeing the pistol the dog stopped barking and started walking with the owner. However, X shot at the dog which died instantly. The owner of the dog files a complaint against X, which in due course reached the Magistrate Court. X pleads the right of private defense. Decide

Legal Principle: The law states that a food business operator must be registered with or licensed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to run a food business.

Fact Situation: Kavita’s neighbours suffer food poisoning after consuming sweets gifted by her on the occasion of a celebration at her home. Kavita does not have a registration or license from the FSSAI.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?

Legal Principle: ‘ Audi alteram partem’ is a Latin phrase which means ‘hear the other side’. It is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing.

Fact Situation: Sanjay, in Delhi, is accused of theft and brought before the Court. The magistrate discovers that Sanjay is mute.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?

Legal Principle: A product cannot be sold in shops to consumers after its date of expiry.

Fact Situation: Lata, while shopping, notices that the milk packets on the shelves are due for expiry on that day. She objects to this to the shopkeeper, saying that since she was there to buy milk for the next day, keeping the milk on its date of expiry was against the law.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?

Mark the best option:
Principles: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it, is a nuisance in law of tort.
Facts: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant's shop who having a licence to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only 1 kg of onion per ration card. The queues extended on to the highway and l also caused some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers filed a suit for nuisance against the defendant. which one of the following decisions will be correct in this suit?

Torts are grounded in the concept of

What main element differentiates the crime of battery from the tort of battery?

Which of the following is not a defense to trespass to the person?

Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:

  1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
  2. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
  3. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
  4. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.

Factual Situation: During 2011, a European Directive was issued requiring nations of the European Community to establish standards on the presence of Perchloroethene (PCE) in water, which the Kingsland did in 2013. Alfa Water Co. purchased a borehole in 2007 to extract water to supply to the public in Kingsland. In 2014, it tested the water to ensure that it met minimum standards for human consumption and discovered that it was contaminated with an organochlorine solvent (PCE). On investigation, it emerged that the solvent seeped into the soil through the building floor of the Light & Soft Leather Tannery, about 3 miles from the borehole that eventually contaminated the Alfa's borehole. Since the tannery opened in 191 O, until 2007, the solvent it used had been delivered in 40-gallon drums which were transported by forklift truck and then tipped into a sump. Since 2007, solvents had been delivered in bulk and stored in tanks. It was then piped to the tanning machinery. There was no evidence of any spills from the tanks or pipes, and it was concluded that the water had been contaminated by frequent spills under the earlier system. Alfa Water brought a claim against the Tannery on the grounds of nuisance.
Whether the Tannery owners are liable?

Qui facit per alium facit per se stands for

PRINCIPLE Assault is the use of words or gestures inducing a threat of force or danger to the person.

FACTS X and Y being friends were comparing stalwarts of their favourite football teams. X egged Y to go on and without realising it converted into a verbal sling fest and reduced to angry expletives. X and Y decided to file suits of verbal assault against each other.

PRINCIPLE A principal is liable for such acts as committed in the course of an agency but is not liable for such acts as committed outside the course of the agency.

FACTS ABC, a partnership between A, B and C maintained a bank account with XYZ. As per the standing arrangement with the bank, signatures of at least two partners were required for the withdrawal of the money from the partnership account. B forged the signatures of A, which were exactly alike and withdrew a large amount of money and disappeared. In a suit brought by A and C 

PRINCIPLE Vis major or an act of God entails a sudden manoeuvre by elements of nature over which we have no control.

FACTS In a bus accident where the driver died of a sudden cardiac arrest, the legal heirs of the deceased brought a suit against the bus company for not making the driver undergo the mandatory health and fitness test before giving employment. The bus company claims a defence of 'vis major'. The defence of vis major in this case shall

LEGAL PRINCIPLE A person, who lawfully brings on something but which though harmless, but mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his and if he does not, he is answerable for all the damage.

FACTUAL SITUATION 'A' was the owner of a mill. In order to supply it with water, he constructed a reservoir upon nearby land by employing engineers and contractors. 'B' was the owner of coal mines, under lands, close to but not adjoining the premises on which the reservoir was constructed. The contractors, while excavating for the bed of the reservoir, came upon abandoned shafts and filled them with soil not suspecting that they were abandoned mine shafts. The reservoir was completed and partly filled. Within days the bed of the reservoir gave way and burst, leading to the flow of water through the channels connected with B's mine. Is 'A' liable to pay damages for loss caused to 'B'?

The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.


1. A person is liable for negligence if he fails to take care of his neighbour's interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.


A cricket match was going on in a closed-door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.

Possible Decisions

(a) The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person'
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.

Possible Reasons

(i) The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
(ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
(iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
(iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game. Your decision with the reason.


A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words ‘in the course of the employment’ mean in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.


Messers. Zafar Abidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as ‘pattadrs’. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bids that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food-stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company.

If the pattadars were compulsorily required to work in the factory for a minimum number of hours every day, then the Company would have been liable to pay compensation to Aashish Mathew if the latter:

Assertion (A): In the event of a violation of any legal right (tort) the aggrieved party is entitled to recover damages as determined by the court.

Reason (R): The object of awarding damages to the aggrieved party is to put him in the same position in which he would have been in the wrong would not have been committed. Damages are, therefore, assessed on that basis. 

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: A statement is defamatory in nature if it is injurious to a person’s reputation and if the statement has been published.

Factual situation: Rudra had been dating a girl named Kiara for three weeks. But he had introduced himself to her as Ricky Thakur (who is one of Rudra’s friends) and he continued to be Ricky for the rest of their relationship. But ultimately the relationship ended badly and Kiara being upset and angry at Rudra started a website named ‘’. She created this website so as to warn other girls about ‘Ricky Thakur’. The real Ricky Thakur files a suit for defamation. Decide. DECISION:

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: The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.

Factual situation: Lalit was running a dairy from his house. People used a dart of his farm as a shortcut to get to a nearby railway station. Lalit who did not approve of this, put up a notice that “Trespassers will be prosecuted”. However, since a number of these people were also his customers he tolerated them. One day a person who was using this short cut was attacked by a bull belonging to the farm. The injured person filed a suit against him. DECISION:


      Forgot password?
Use app×