(Paper) Previous Year Question Paper (BA LLB) - 2011
Section - IV : Legal Aptitude
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.
A. The fundamental right to freedom of association includes the right to form an association as well as not join an association.
B. The fundamental right to freedom of association also includes the freedom to decide with whom to associate.
C. The fundamental right to freedom of association does not extend to the right to realise the objectives of forming the association.
D. Fundamental rights are applicable only to laws made by or administrative actions of the State and do not apply to actions of private persons.
E. Any law in contravention of fundamental rights is unconstitutional and therefore cannot bind any person.
Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals, a private company, offered an employment contract of two years to Syed Monitul Alam. One of the clauses in the employment contract provided that Syed Monirul Alam must join Gajodhar Mazdoor Sangh (GMS), one of the trade unions active in Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals.
1. Decide which of the following propositions can be most reasonably inferred through the application of the stated legal rules to the facts of this case:
(a) The employment contract offered to Monitul Alam to join GMS is legal as it does not restrict his freedom not to join any association.
(b) The condition requiring Monirul Alam to join GMS cannot bind him as it impinges on his freedom not to join any association.
(c) Syed Monirul Alam cannot claim a fundamental right to freedom of association against Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals and therefore, the contract would bind him even though his freedom of association is restricted.
(d) The employment contract infringes Syed Monirul Alam’s freedom to decide with whom to associate and therefore is legally not enforceable.
2. If Parliament enacts a law which requires every employee to join the largest trade union in their workplace mandating Syed Monirul Alam to join GMS, then:
(a) Such a law would merely govem private action to which fundamental rights do not apply.
(b) Such a law would not curtail any individual’s right to freedom of association.
(c) Neither the employment contract, nor the law of the parliament would be enforceable as they would curtail the freedom of association.
(d) The law of parliament would violate an individual’s freedom not to join any association and therefore be unconstitutional.
3. If Parliament enacts a law that requires a trade union to open its membership to all the employees, then
(a) Such a law would not infringe any fundamental right to freedom of association.
(b) The law of the parliament would curtail an individual’s right not to join any association.
(c) Such a law would curtail the union members’ right to decide with whom they would like to associate.
(d) Such a law would render the employment contract offered by Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals to Syed Monirul Alam unenforceable.
4. If Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals enter into an agreement with GMS wherein the former agrees to hire only the existing members of GMS as employees, then:
(a) The agreement would be illegal as it would curtail the union members’ right to decide with whom they would like to associate.
(b) Such an agreement would infringe the union’s right to decide with whom to associate and therefore is legally not enforceable.
(c) The agreement would not be enforceable as it would infringe upon the employer’s right not to join an association.
(d) The constitutionality of this agreement cannot be contested on grounds of contravention of fundamental rights as such rights are not applicable to private persons.
5. If Parliament enacts a legislation prohibiting strikes by trade unions of employees engaged in pharmaceutical industry, then:
(a) The legislation would not violate the right to freedom of association.
(b) The legislation would curtail the right of trade unions to strike, and therefore violate freedom of association.
(c) Since strike is only one of the objectives with which u trade union is fonned, right to strike is not protected by the right to freedom of association.
(d) None of the above
Rule: Whoever finds an unattended object can keep it unless the true owner claims that object. This does not affect the property owner’s right to the ownership of the property on whicit the object is found. The right to ownership of a property does not include the right to ownership of unattended objects on that property.
Facts: Elizabeth is the CEO of a global management services company in Chcnnai and is on her way to Ranchi to deliver the convocation address at India’s leading business school on the outskirts of Ranchi. Flying business class on Dolphin Airlines, she is entitled to use the lounge owned by the airline in Chennai Airport while waiting for her flight. She finds a diamond ear-ring on the floor of the lounge and gives it to the staff of Dolphin Airlines expressly stating that in the event of nobody claiming the ear-ring within six months, she would claim it back. The airline sells the ear-ring after eight months and Elizabeth files a case to recover the value of the ear-ring from the airline when she is informed about its sale.
6. As a judge you would order that:
(a) Elizabeth is not entitled to compensation because the ear-ring was found on the property of the airline and therefore, the airline is entitled to sell it.
(b) The airline must compensate Elizabeth because owning the lounge does not give the airline the right over all things that might be found on it.
(c) The airline must compensate Elizabeth because while accepting the ear-ring from Elizabeth they had agreed to return it if nobody claimed it within six months.
(d) Elizabeth is not entitled to compensation because she did not claim the earring after the expiry of six months and the airline waited for a couple more months before selling it.
7. Assume now that Elizabeth was only an economy class passenger and was not entitled to use the airline’s lounge. However, she manages to gain entry and finds the ear-ring in the lounge. The rest of the above facts remain the same. Will her illegal entry into the Lounge affect Elizabeth’s right to keep the ear-ring (or be compensated for its value)?
(a) Yes, the airline claims that Elizabeth’s entry into the lounge was illegal and therefore she has no right over anything she found there
(b) No, because Elizabeth’s class of travel has no bearing on the Outcome in this case
(c) Cannot be determined as we need to know how Elizabeth was able to access the airline’s lounge.
(d) None of the above.
8. To the original fact scenario, the following fact is added: In the lounge there are numerous signboards which proclaim ‘Any unattended item will be confiscated by Dolphin Airlines’. In this case, you would:
(a) Order the airline to pay compensation to Elizabeth because the board in the lounge cannot grant property rights over unattended objects to the airline.
(b) Deny Elizabeth compensation because the signboard makes it evident that the airline, as owner of the lounge, is exercising all rights over all unattended items in the lounge and the ear-ring is one such item.
(c) Deny Elizabeth compensation because she knew any unattended item belonged to the airline.
(d) Order the airline to pay compensation to Elizabeth because the property rights of the airline are relevant only if the item is unattended. The moment Elizabeth found the earring, it belonged to her.
Rules A: The State shall not discriminate, either directly or indirectly, on the grounds of sex, race, religion, caste, creed, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, pregnancy, place of birth, gender orientation or any other status.
Rule B: Direct discrimination occurs when for a reason related to one or more prohibited grounds a person or group of persons is treated less favourably than another person or another group of persons in a comparable situation.
Rule C: Indirect discrimination occurs when a provision, criterion or practice which is neutral on the face of it would have the effect of putting persons having a status or a characteristic associated with one or more prohibited grounds at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons.
Rule D: Discrimination shall be justified when such discrimination is absolutely necessary in order to promote the well-being of disadvantaged groups, such as women, dalits, religious minorities, sexual minorities or disabled persons.
Facts: On 2″° October 2010, the Governor of the state of Bihar ordered the release of all women prisoners who were serving sentence of less than one year imprisonment to mark the occasion of Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday.
9. Which of the following is correct with respect to the Governor’s order?
(a) It discriminates directly on the ground of sex.
(b) It discriminates indirectly on the ground of sex.
(c) It does not discriminate oil the ground of sex.
(d) It discriminates directly as well as indirectly on tile ground of sex.
10. Is the govcrnur’s oiderjustiflied under Rule D?
(a) Yes, because it is for the well-being of women prisoners.
(b) No because it is not absolutely necessary for the well-being of+vomen prisoners.
(c) No, because it does not promote the well-being of women prisoners or the society.
(d) None of the above
11. Assume that the Governor also made a second order requiring the release of all persons under the age of 25 and over the age of 65 who were serving a sentence of less than one year’s imprisonment. Under the Rules, this order is:
(a) Directly discriminatory.
(b) Indirectly discriminatory.
(c) Not discriminatory.
(d) Discriminatory, butjustifiable.
12. Assume further that the government made a third order, releasing all graduate prisoners who are serving a sentence of less than one year’s imprisonment. Which of the following statistics would have to be true for this order to be indirectly discriminatory?
(a) Only 13% of the prison population in Bihar have a graduation degree.
(b) Of the graduate prisoners. 89% belong to upper castes.
(c) Only 25% women in Bihar get a graduation degree.
(d) All of the above.
Rule E: ‘A discriminatory act shall be justified if its effect is to promote the wellbeing of disadvantaged groups, such as women, dalits, religious minorities, sexual minorities or disabled persons.’
13. Would the first Order of release of all women prisoners be justified under Rule E?
(a) Yes because it promotes the well-being, of women.
(b) No, because it does not promote the well-being of women prisoners
(c) No, because it does not promote the well-being of all disadvantaged groups equally.
(d) None of the above.
A. A minor is a person who is below the age of eighteen. However, where a guardian administers the minor’s property the age of majority is twenty-one.
B. A minor is not permitted by law to enter into a contract. Hence, where a minor enters into a contract with a major person, the contract is not enforceable. This effectively means that neither the minor nor the other party can make any claim on the basis of the contract.
C. In a contract with a minor, if the other party hands over any money or confers any other benefit on the minor, the same shall not be recoverable from the minor unless the otherparty was deceived by the minor lo hand over money or any other benefit. The other party will have to show that (he minor misrepresented her age, he was ignorant about the age of the minor and that he handed over the benefit on the basis of such representation.
Ajay convinces Bandita, a girl aged IR that she should sell her land to him. Bandita’s mother Chaaru is her guardian. Nonetheless Bandita, without the permission of Chaaru, sells the land to Ajay for a total sum of rupees fifty lakh, paid in full and final settlement of the price. Chaaru challenges this transaction claiming that Bandita is a minor and hence the possession of the land shall not be given to Ajay. Thus Ajay is in a difficult situation and has no idea how to recover his money from Bandita.
14. Chaaru is justified in challenging the sale transaction because:
(a) Bandita is of unsound mind and is not in a position to make rational decisions.
(b) Though Bandita is eighteen year old, she will be treated as a minor, as Chaaru is her guardian.
(c) Though Bandita is eighteen year old, she cannot sell the land without the permission of her mother.
(d) Though Bandita is eighteen year old she should not be treated like a person who has attained the age of majority.
15. Ajay can be allowed to recover the money only if he can show that:
(a) He was deceived by Bandita who misrepresented her age.
(b) He honestly believed that Bandita was empowered under the law to sell the land.
(c) He was an honest person who had paid the full price of the land to Bandita.
(d) Both (a) and (b).
16. In order to defend the sale, Bandita will need to show that
(a) Bandita has attained the age of majority.
(b) Bandita is mature enough to make rational decisions regarding her own affairs.
(c) The sale transaction was beneficial to her interest and will enhance her financial status.
(d) None of the above.
17. Which of the following is correct?
(a) Ajay should be allowed to recover the money because even though there is no contract, Bandita and Chaaru should not be allowed to unjustly benefit from Ajay’s money.
(b) Ajay should be allowed the possession of the land because Chaaru can always decide to approve the transaction between Ajay and Bandita.
(c) Ajay should not be allowed to recover because he induced Bandita, a minor; to sell the land.
(d) None of the above.
18. Which of the following is correct?
(a) If Ajay is allowed to recover the money, that will defeat the law framed for protecting the minors against fraudulent persons.
(b) If Ajay is not allowed to recover that will cause him injustice as he has not paid oil’ the entire sale price.
(c) If Ajay is allowed to recover, Chaaru will benefit from both the money and the land.
(d) None of the above.
A. The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion.
B. The act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence.
C. In order to prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract.
D. In order to prove undue-influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.
Aadil and Baalu are best friends. Aadil is the son of multi millionaire business person, Chulbal who owns Maakhan Pharmaceuticals. Baalu is the son of a bank employee, Dhanraj. One day, Aadil is abducted from his office by Baalu. Chulbul receives a phone call from Dhamaj telling him that if he does not make Baalu the CEO of NIaakhan Pharmaceuticals, Aadil will be killed. Chulbul reluctantly agrees to make the Baalu the CEO. Subsequently Chulbul and Baalu sign an employment contract. However as soon as Aadil is released and safely returns home, Chulbul tells Baala that he shall not enforce the employment contract. Baalu and Dhanraj are not sure as to what is to be done next.
19. As per the rules and the given facts, who coerces whom:
(a) Aadil coerces Baalu.
(b) Baalu coerces Chulbul.
(c) Dhanraj coerces Chulbul
(d) None of the above.
20. In the above fact situation:
(a) There is undue influence exercised by Dhanraj on Baalu.
(b) There is undue influence exercised by Aadil on Chulbul.
(c) There is no undue influence.
(d) None of the above.
21. Chulbul is:
(a) Justified in refusing to enforce the employment contract as Chulbul was coerced by Dhanraj.
(b) Justified in refusing to enforce the employment contract as Baalu was complicit in the coercive act
(c) Not juslilied in refusing to enforce the employment contract as Baalu was an innocent person and has not coerced Chulbul.
(d) Both a) and b).
22. Baalu will succeed in getting the employment contract enforced if he can show that
(a) He is the best friend of Aadil
(b) It was his father, and not he, who used coercion against Chulbul.
(c) Chulbul has promised his father to employ him.
(d) None of the above.
Rule A: When a State undertakes any measure, the effects of the measure must be the same for all those who are affected by it.
Facts: 100 mountaineers embarked on an extremely risky climbing expedition in Leh. Weather conditions worsened five days into the expedition and the mountaineers are trapped under heavy snow. The government received information of this tragedy only two weeks after the unfortunate incident and has only 24 hours in which to send rescue helicopters. Weather stations across the world confirm that this particular region of Leh will experience blizzards of unprecedented intensity for almost two weeks after this 24 hour window rendering any helicopter activity in the region impossible and certain death for anyone left behind. The government has only five rescue helicopters with a maximum capacity of 50 people (excluding pilots and requisite soldiers) and these helicopters can fly only once in 24 hours to such altitudes.
As the Air Force gets ready to send the helicopters, an emergency hearing is convened in the Supreme Court to challenge this measure as this would leave 50 people to die.
23. If you were the judge required to apply Rule A, you would decide that:
(a) As many lives must be saved as possible.
(b) If everyone cannot be rescued, then everyone must be left behind.
(c) A measure cannot be upheld at the cost of 50 lives.
(d) It must be left to those who are trapped to decide if they want half amongst them to be saved and leave the rest to die.
Rule B: When a State undertakes any measure, everyone affected must have an equal chance to benefit from it.
24. As the government prepares to send in rescue helicopters, which option would be acceptable only under Rule B and not Rule A:
(a) A lottery to choose the 50 survivors excluding those diagnosed with terminal illnesses from participating in the lottery.
(b) A lottery to decide the 50 survivors with single parents of children below five years of age automatically qualifying to be rescued.
(c) The 50 youngest people should be rescued.
(d). None of the above.
25. Choosing 50 survivors exclusively by a lottery would be:
(a) Permissible under Rules A and B.
(b) Impermissible under Rule A and B.
(c) Permissible only under Rule B.
(d) Permissible only under Rule A.
26. If the government decides that it will either save everyone or save none, it would be:
(a) Permissible under Rules A and B.
(b) Impermissible under Rules A and B.
(c) Permissible only under Rule A.
(d) Permissible only under Rule B.
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’ means in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.
Messrs. ZafarAbidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as `pattadars’. 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 hours of work or for any fixed number of days. Neither are they required to roll up any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not and pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bidis 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 foodstall.
Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company.
27. Which of the following statements can most plausibly be inferred from the application of the rules to the given facts:
(a) Aashish Mathew is an employee of the Company because the latter exercises control over the manner in which Aashish Mathew carries out his work.
(b) Aashish Mathew is not an employee but an independent contractor as he does not have a fixed salary.
(c) Aashish Mathew is an employee because the Company exercises control over the final quality of the bidis.
(d) Verification of the quality of bidis amounts to control over the product and not control over the mode and method of work and therefore, Aashish Mathew is not an employee of the Company.
28. In case the patladars were compulsorily required to work in the factory for a minimum number of hours every day, then it would be correct to state that:
(a) The injury was not caused by an accident in the course of employment
(b) Aashish Mathew would not be an employee as the Company would have still not exercised control over the manner of work
(c) The injury suffered by Aashish Mathew could not be held to be one caused by an accident.
(d) Stipulations on place and hours of work relate to manner and mode of work and therefore, Aashish Mathew would be held to be an employee of the Company.
29. According to the facts and the rules specified, which of the following propositions is correct?
(a) The Company is not liable to pay compensation as the injury to Aashish Mathew was not caused by an accident arising in the course of employment.
(b) The Company is liable to pay the compensation.
(c) Since the injury did not arise in the course of employment, the Company would not be liable to pay the compensation even though Aashish Mathew is an employee of the company.
(d) The Company is liable to pay the compensation as Aashish Mathew is a contracted pattadar with the company.
30. Select the statement that could be said to be most direct inference from specified facts:
(a) The injury to Aashish Mathew did not arise in the course of employment as he was not rolling bidis at the time when he was hit by the car.
(b) Since the Ashish Mathew is a contracted pattadar with the Company, it shall be presumed that the injury was caused by an accident in the course of employment.
(c) Since there was no relationship of employment between Aashish Mathew and the Company, the injury suffered by Aashish Mathew could not be held to be one arising in the course of employment’ notwithstanding the fact that the concerned injury was caused while he was involved in an activity incidental to his duties.
(d) As the concerned injury was caused to Aashish Mathew while he was involved in an activity incidental to his duties, the injury did arise in the course of employment.
31. 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:
(a) Had been assaulted and grievously hurt by his neighbour inside the factory precincts over a property dispute.
(b) Had slipped and fractured his arm while trying to commute on a city bus from his home to the factory.
(c) Had been injured while commuting on a bus provided by the Company and which he was required by his contract to use every day.
(d) Had been caught in the middle of a cross-fire between police and a gang of robbers while travelling to work on a city bus.
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.
Veena, an old lady of 78 years, 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 died, 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 probably wouldn’t want this old painting back, especially because it was I’m 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. If Lucky had discovered the painting before leaving Indira’s house rather than at the rubbish dump, would lie 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, lie would be guilty of theft of the painting.
(d) None of the above.
35. 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
36. 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 completely destroyed.
(d) None of the above.
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’.
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 Garret for sixty laky 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 Khalid used this light-colored radiant carpet to negate some of the darkness in the room. Garret, after moving in, realizes this and files a case to recover the carpet from Khalid.
37. As a judge you would decide in favour of:
(a) Garret because when the price was agreed upon, Khalid did not inform her about removing the carpet.
(b) Garret because the carpet was integral to the floor of the bedroom and therefore attached to the building that was sold.
(c) Khalid because a fully-furnished house does not entail the buyer to everything in the house.
(d) Khalid because by Virtue of’ being a carpet it was never permanently fixed to the floor of the building
Assume that in the above fact scenario, Khalid no longer wants the carpet. She removes the elaborately carved door to the house after the sale has been concluded and claims that Garret has no claim to the door. The door in question was part of Khaleeda’s ancestral home in Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu for more than 150 years before she had it fitted as the entrance to her Baghmara house.
38. As a judge you would decide in favour of.
(a) Khaleeda because while the rest of the building belongs to Khaleeda exclusively, the door is ancestral property and therefore the decision to sell it cannot be Khaleeda’s alone.
(b) Gurpreet because the door is an integral part of the building as it is attached to it.
(c) Khaleeda because the door can be removed from the buildittg and is therefore not attached to it.
(d) Gurpreet because the contract is explicitly for the whole house and since the door is part of house, it cannot be removed subsequent to the sale.
39. Amongst the following options, the most relevant consideration while deciding a case on the basis of the above two principles would be:
(a) Whether the moveable thing was included in the sale agreement.
(b) Whether the moveable thing was merely placed on the land or building
(c) Whether the moveable thing had become an inseparable part of the land or building.
(d) Whether the moveable thing could be removed.
40. Rule C: If a moveable thing is placed on land with the intention that it should become an integral part of the land or any structure on the land it becomes a fixture.
Applying, Rules A and C, to the fact situations in questions 192 and 193, as a judge you would decide in favour of:
(a) Khaleeda in both situations.
(b) Gurpreet only in 192.
(c) Khaleeda only in 193.
(d) Gurpeet in both situations.
Rule A: An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
Rule B: Rights above the laud extend only to the point they are essential to any use or enjoyment of land.
Rule C: An owner cannot claim infringement of her property right if the space above his or her land is put to reasonable use by someone else at a height at which the owner would have to reasonable use of it and it does not affect the reasonable enjoyment of his or her land.
Ramesh’s case: Ramesh owns an acre of land on the outskirts of Sullurpeta, Andhra Pradcsh. The Govemment of India launches its satellites into space frequently from Sriharikota, near Sullurpcla. The Government of India does not deny that once the satellite launch has traveled the distance of almost 7000 kilometres it passes over Ramesh’s properly. Ramesh files a case claiming that the Government of India has violated his property rights by routing its satellite over his property, albeit 7000 kilometres directly above it.
41. Applying only Rule A to Ramesh’s case, as a judge you would decide:
(a) In favour of the Government of India because the transgression waz at a height at which Ramesh could not possibly have any use for.
(b) That ownership of land does not mean that the owner’s right extends infinitely into space above the land.
(c) In favour of Ramesh because he has the right to infinite space above the land he owns
(d) In favour of the Government of India because it would lead to the absurd result that Ramesh and most other property owners would have a claim against airline companies and other countries of the world whose satellites orbit the earth.
Shazia’s case: Shazia owns a single storeyed house in Ahmedabad which has been in her family for more than 75 years. The foundation of the house cannot support another floor and Shazia has no intention of demolishing her family home to construct a bigger building. Javed and Sandeep are business partners and own three storey houses on either side of Shazia’s house. Javed and Sandeep are also Ahmedabad’s main distributors for a major soft drinke company. They have erected a huge hoarding advertising their products, with the ends supported on their roofs but the hoarding also passes over Shazia’s house at 70 feet and casts a permanent shadow on her terrace. Shazia decides to hoist a huge Indian flag, going up to 75 feet, on her roof. She files a case, asking the court to order Javed and Sandeep to remove the hoarding for all these reasons.
42. Applying only Rule B to Shazia’s case, you would decide in favour of
(a) Javed and Sandeep because Shazia can easily hoist a flag below 70 feet.
(b) Shazia because she has the right to put her land to any use and the court catmot go into her intentions for hoisting a flag at 75 feet.
(c) Shazia because she has the absolute right to the space above her land.
(d) Javed and Sandeep because hoisting a flag 75 feet above one’s roof is not essential to the use and enjoyment of the land.
43. Applying only Rules A and B to Shazia’s case, you would decide:
(a) In favour of Shazia only under Rule A.
(b) In favour of Shazia under Rule A as well as B.
(c) Against Shazia under Rule B.
(d) Against Shazia under Rule A as well as B.
44. Applying only Rule B and C to Ramesh’s case, you would decide:
(a) In favour of Ramesh only under Rule B.
(b) In favour of Ramesh under Rule B as well as C.
(c) Against Ramesh under Rule C.
(d) Against Ramesh under Rule B as well as C.
45. Applying Rule C to Shazia’s case, you would decide:
(a) In her favour because hoisting a 75 feet high flag is reasonable.
(b) Against her because hoisting a 75 feet high flag is not reasonable.
(c) Against her because the hoarding is a reasonable use of the space above her land.
(d) In her favour because the permanent shadow cast by the hoarding affects the reasonable enjoyment of her land.