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.
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 sells his car to B. A has a right to recover the price of the car from B. This right is a
A contract creates
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: The object of an agreement is lawful unless it is forbidden by law; is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; is fraudulent; involves or implies injury to the person or property of another person; the court regards it as immoral; it is opposed to public policy.
Factual Situation: The BCCI decided to hold an auction to sell IPL teams. 12 bidders registered for the auction. Unknown to the BCCI, these 12 bidders had entered into a contract that they would not bid more than a certain amount.
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. Consideration is something that moves from the promisee to the promisor, at the implied or express request of the latter, in return for his promise. The item that moves can be a right, interest, profit, loss, responsibility given or suffered, forbearance, or a benefit which is of some value in the eyes of law.
2. An offer may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterward.
Factual Situation: Bournville ran a sales promotion whereby if persons sent in 3 chocolate bar wrappers and a postal order for f 100 they would be sent a record. Big Beats owned the copyright in one of the records offered and disputed the right of Bournville to offer the records and sought an injunction to prevent the sale of the records which normally retailed at f 1,000. Under the Copyright Act, retailers are protected from breach of copyright if they gave notice to the copyright holders of the ordinary retail selling price and paid them 6.25% of this. Bournville gave notice stating the ordinary selling price was f 100 and three chocolate bar wrappers. The issue is whether the chocolate bar wrappers formed part of the consideration?
A contract enforceable at the instance of one Party is known as
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?
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 premises owes a duty of care to all his invites and visitors.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Laloo was running a dairy from his house. People used a part of his farm as a short cut to get to a nearby railway station. Laloo 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:
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: Where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to the matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.
Factual Situation: A had a piece of land. He believed that the value of the land was ₹1,000 per square foot. B knew that the value of the land was infact ₹1,500 per square foot. However, he did not inform A and purchased the land at ₹1,000.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A and B started a partnership firm for providing vehicle repair services. C approached the firm for getting his car repaired and noticed that only B was present in the office. C informed the problem and B started repairing the car. While B was repairing, he filled petrol instead of oil in the engine. As a consequence, a small blast occurred and damaged the car. Now, C sued both A and B for the damage so caused. 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:
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:
