English

Principle: One Who Dishonestly Mis­Appropriates Or Converts to His Own Use Or Sells Any Movable Property Belonging to Another, is Guilty of the Offence of Misappropriation.

Advertisements
Advertisements

Question

Principle: One who dishonestly mis­appropriates or converts to his own use or sells any movable property belonging to another, is guilty of the offence of misappropriation.

Facts: 'A' takes property belonging to 'Z' out of Z's possession, in good faith, believing when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. Subsequently, 'A', on discovering his mistake, without disclosing the actual facts, dishonestly sells the property to a stranger.

Options

  • 'A' is not guilty because when he took the property, he believed in good faith that it belonged to him.

  • 'A' is guilty of an offence of misappropriation.

  • 'A' may be guilty of theft but not for misappropriation.

  • 'A' is not guilty as the property can be recovered from the stranger.

MCQ
Advertisements

Solution

'A' is guilty of an offence of misappropriation.

Explanation:

According to the section 403 of Indian Penal Code defines Dishonest misappropriation of property whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.  
1. A dishonest misappropriation for a time only is a misappropriation within the meaning of this section.   
2. A person who finds property not in the possession of any other person, and takes such property for the purpose of protecting it for, or of restoring it to, the owner, does not take or misappropriate it dishonestly, and is not guilty of an offence; but he is guilty of the offence above defined, if he appropriates it to his own use, when he knows or has the means of discovering the owner, or before he has used reasonable means to discover and give notice to the owner and has kept the property a  reasonable time to enable the owner to claim it.   
What are reasonable means or what is a reasonable time in such a case, is a question of fact.   
It is not necessary that the finder should know who is the owner of the property, or that any particular person is the owner of it; it is sufficient if, at the time of appropriating it, he does not believe it to be his own property, or in good faith belief that the real owner cannot be found.  
The reasonable conclusion is drawn A is guilty of misappropriation is the correct.

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
2015-2016 (May) Set 1

RELATED QUESTIONS

Principle: Damages the money recompense, as far as money can do, for the loss suffered by a person.

Facts: A, an Indian citizen, have a right to vote, was not allowed to cast his vote on the polling booth, by the returning officer. The name of A was mentioned in the voter‘s list. A has also reported at the polling booth in time. However, the candidate in whose favor A would have cast his vote won the election. A filed a suit claiming damages. 


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

Principle:  According to law, a person who finds goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.

Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?


Legal Principle: It is an offense to obstruct a public servant in the due discharge of his duty. The right of private defense is available to protect one’s person and property.

Fact Situation: Sidhu comes to the rescue of his uncle who is sought to be taken into a car by some men. In the process, he causes injury to some of them. Later, it turns out that the men were police persons in plain clothes trying to enforce a warrant against his uncle.

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


Legal Principle: No remedy lies in law where an injury is caused to a person without any infringement of his legal right.

Fact Situation: Ashutosh started a tuition Centre right next to the one being run for the past twenty years by Gulshan. After Ashutosh started his Centre, a large number of students shifted from Gulshan’s tuition Centre to Ashutosh’s Centre forcing Gulshan to close down his establishment suffering huge losses. Can Gulshan initiate legal action against Ashutosh?

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


In India, the literary work is protected until


India became a member of the United Nations in the Year


Which of the following could not constitute battery if done with the requisite intent?


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

  1. A person is liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others and commits a breach of that duty·causing injury thereby.
  2. Valenti non-fit injuria is a defence to negligence.

Factual Situation: Anil and his wife, Reena, were in a shop as customers, where a skylight in the roof of the shop was broken, owing to the negligence of the contractors engaged in repairing the roof, and a portion of the glass fell and struck Anil causing him a severe shock. Reena, who was standing close to him, was not touched by the falling glass, but, reasonably believing her husband to be in danger, she instinctively clutched his arm, and tried to pull him from the spot. In doing this, she strained her-leg in such a way as to bring about a recurrence of thrombosis. Anil and Reena are claiming compensation for their injuries which were caused due to the negligence of the shop owners. The shop owners are denying liability on the grounds of  Valenti non-fit injuria. The defense of Valenti non-fit injuria.


Principle: A Master is liable to third persons for every such wrong of his servant as committed in the course of service. For acts committed beyond the scope of employment, the master is liable only if he has expressly authorised the act.

A owned a bus and he had hired B to drive it and C to be the conductor. One day, when B had stepped out of the bus to have a cup of coffee. C decided to turn the bus around so that it was ready for its next trip. While doing so, C ran over D's leg, causing major injuries to him. D sued A for damages.


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:


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×