CLAT Common Law Admission Test Solved Paper 2011 – English, Aptitude Part 17

Doorsteptutor material for CTET/Paper-1 is prepared by world's top subject experts: get questions, notes, tests, video lectures and more- for all subjects of CTET/Paper-1.

Legal Aptitude

Instructions to Candidates

This section consists of ten problems (with 45 questions) in total. Each problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the questions. In answering the following questions, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for every problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.

Problem 1 (Q. Nos. 156 to 160)

Rules

A. Whoever intending to take any moveable property out of the possession of any person, without that person’s consent, moves that property out of his or her possession, is said to commit theft.

B. A person who, without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property shall be guilty of causing criminal damage.

C. Damage means any impairment of the value of a property.

Facts

Veena, an old lady of 78 year, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it became quite difficult to clean her room. After she aied, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there.

There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes. Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky was sorting and throwing away the newspapers, he was very surprised to find a beautiful painting in between two sheets of paper. He thought that Indira wouldn’t want this old painting back, especially because it was torn in several places and the colour was fading. He took the painting home, mounted it on a wooden frame and hung it on the wall of his bedroom. Unknown to him, the painting was an old masterpiece, and worth twenty thousand rupees. Before mounting the painting, Lucky pasted it on a plain sheet of paper so that it does not tear any more. By doing so, he made its professional restoration very difficult and thereby reduced its value by half. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.

156. Has Lucky committed theft?

(a) Yes, Lucky has committed theft of the newspapers and the painting

(b) No, Lucky has not committed theft because he had Veena’s consent

(c) Yes, Lucky has committed theft of the painting, but not of the newspapers

(d) No, Lucky has not committed theft because he has not moved the painting out of Veena’s possession

Ans: (b)

157. Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?

(a) No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting

(b) Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the painting

(c) No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore

(d) No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting

Ans: (a)

158. If Lucky had discovered the painting before leaving Indira’s house rather than at the rubbish dump, would he have been guilty of theft in this case?

(a) Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the newspapers and the paintings

(b) No, he would not be guilty of theft

(c) Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the painting

(d) None of the above

Ans: (c)

159. Is Kamala guilty of theft?

(a) No, Kamala is not guilty of theft since the person she took the painting from (Lucky) was not its lawful owner

(b) No, Kamala is not guilty of theft since she took the painting only with the motive of returning it to Indira

(c) Yes, Kamala is guilty of theft as she took the painting out of Lucky’s possession without his consent

(d) None of the above

Ans: (c)

160. Which of the following propositions could be inferred from the facts and the rules specified?

(a) Kamala is guilty of criminal damage as the person she took the painting from (Lucky) was not its lawful owner

(b) Kamala is guilty of criminal damage as she took the painting without Lucky’s consent

(c) Kamala is not guilty of criminal damage as the painting has not been destroyed

(d) None of the above.

Ans: (b)

Problem 2 (Q. Nos. 161 to 164) Rules

A. When land is sold, all ‘fixtures’ on the land are also deemed to have been sold.

B. If a moveable thing is attached to the land or any building on the land, then it becomes a ‘fixture.’

Facts

Khaleeda wants to sell a plot of land she owns in Baghmara, Meghalaya and the sale value decided for the plot includes the fully furnished palatial six-bedroom house that she has built on it five years ago. She sells it to Gurpreet for sixth, lakh rupees. After completing the sale, she removes the expensive Iranian carpet which used to cover the entire wooden floor of one of the bedrooms. The room had very little light and Khaleeda used this light-colored radiant carpet to negate some of the darkness in the room. Gurpreet, after moving in, realizes this and files a case to recover the carpet from Khaleeda.

161. As a judge you would decide in favour of

(a) Gurpreet because when the price was agreed upon, Khaleeda did not inform her about removing the carpet.

(b) Gurpreet because the carpet was integral to the floor of the bedroom and therefore attached to the building that was sold.

(c) Khaleeda because a fully furnished house does not entail the buyer to everything in the house

(d) Khaleeda because by virtue of being a carpet it was never permanently fixed to the floor of the building

Ans: (b)