Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments On Law Examinations

Q 1. The trial court convicted the accused in a murder case based on the deceased's mother's testimony deposing that her son (deceased) had made an oral dying declaration pointing out the names of the accused. However, the conviction was set aside by the High Court after noting material discrepancies in the deceased mother's testimony because in her Section 161 CrPC statements she didn't make any averments about the dying declaration while at the stage of trial, she deposed about the dying declaration made by the deceased to her. Decide.

a. Oral dying made to a close relative requires cautious examination before convicting the accused.

b. Material discrepancy that occurred in the deceased mother's testimony makes the authenticity of the oral dying declaration questionable and untrustworthy. 

c. Both (a) and (b)

d. None of the Above

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that when the conviction was based on the deceased's oral dying declaration to a close relative, the courts must exercise due caution in believing the testimony of the close relative to convict the accused.

Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Ramjan Khan & Ors.

Oral Dying Declaration Made To Close Relatives Requires Cautious Assessment Before Being Used To Convict Accused : Supreme Court

Q 2. The acquittal of the accused in a murder case was overturned by the High Court based on the accused failure to explain their plea of alibi that they weren't present in the house where the alleged offence took place. Decide in light of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

a. When the entire prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, then the failure of the accused to justify their claim under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, despite having special knowledge about the incident, would create an additional chain of events strengthening the prosecution's case.

b. The accused owes a duty to explain the circumstances that led to the death of the deceased when the offence was committed in the privacy of the house.

c. If the accused remains quiet or offers a false explanation, then such a response would become an additional link in the chain of circumstances.

d. All of the above

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that when the offence was committed in the presence of the accused in the privacy of their house, then their failure to offer explanations can be treated as an adverse circumstance against them as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“IEA”).

Case Title: UMA & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

S.106 Evidence Act | Accused Has Duty To Offer Explanations When Offence Was Committed Within Privacy Of Their House : Supreme Court

Q 3. The plaintiff claimed specific performance of the agreement to sell a property that was jointly owned by five persons (two brothers and three sisters). Despite knowing that the sisters (co-owners) haven't consented to the sale of the suit property, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based on the oral assurance of the brothers that they will procure the sisters for the execution of the sale deed. Decide.

a. Suit for specific performance of the contract can't be decreed in the plaintiff's favor as the plaintiff didn't ensure the participation and consent of the sisters to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

b. When the property is jointly owned by several persons then it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to ensure the participation of every owner for sale deed execution.

c. Both (a) and (b)

d. None of the Above

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: Recently, the Supreme Court observed that when the plaintiff seeks specific performance of the agreement to sell a property (being jointly owned by multiple persons), then the onus is on the plaintiff to ensure that all necessary consents and participations are secured to prove his readiness and willingness towards the performance of the contract.

Case Title: JANARDAN DAS & ORS. VERSUS DURGA PRASAD AGARWALLA & ORS

Specific Relief Act | In Agreement To Sell Property Under Joint Ownership, Onus Is On Plaintiff To Secure Consent Of All Co-Owners : Supreme Court

Q 4. A gift deed was executed in favor of the donee having the donor's full consent to establish the Khadi and Yarn Industry on the gifted piece of land.  However, after some time of Industry's establishment on the gifted land, the gift deed was revoked despite no right of revocation being reserved in the deed. Decide whether the gift deed could be revoked under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

a. The gift deed could be revoked despite no right of revocation being reserved in the deed.

b. When the gift deed was executed by the donor in favor of the donee setting out a purpose of a gift with no right reserved for its revocation in any contingency, then the fulfillment of the gift's purpose by the donee would make it a valid gift, rendering it irrevocable.

c. The gift deed could be revoked when the donee failed to establish the Khadi and Yarn Industry.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that a gift deed could not be revoked ordinarily, especially when no right of revocation is reserved in the deed. The judgment also explained the conditions to revoke a gift deed as per Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Case Title: N. THAJUDEEN VERSUS TAMIL NADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD

S. 126 TPA | Gift Deed Can't Be Revoked Ordinarily, More Particularly When No Right Of Revocation Is Reserved In Deed : Supreme Court

Q 5. In a recent case titled Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action and Anr. v. UoI and Ors., the Supreme Court emphasized the ________________ approach to create awareness about the prevention of child marriages in India. Fill in the blank space.

a. Media Driven Approach

b. Police Driven Approach

c. Society Driven Approach

d. Community Driven Approach

Answer: Option (d)

'Marriages Fixed During Minority Of Child Violates Free Choice' : Supreme Court Suggests Ban On Child Betrothals

Q 6. The genuineness of the prosecution documents was admitted by the defence counsel without formal proof of its presence. Could the court grant an additional chance to the accused as he did not get a fair trial because the defence counsel had admitted the prosecution's document and had dispensed with its formal proof?

a. No, when the defence admits the genuineness of the prosecution documents and dispenses with its formal proof then, such evidence may be read as substantive evidence under Section 294 of Cr.P.C.

b. No, when the prosecution's documents were admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. by the defence without formal proof, then the only job left for the courts is “to appreciate, analyze and test the creditworthiness of the evidence led by the prosecution which was available on record.

c. Both (a) and (b)

d. Yes, the Court can exercise its discretion to provide another chance to the defence irrespective of the fact that the genuineness of the prosecution documents was admitted by the defence counsel without formal proof of its presence.

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that when the defence admits the genuineness of the prosecution documents and dispenses with its formal proof then, such evidence may be read as substantive evidence under Section 294 of Cr.P.C.

Case Title: SHYAM NARAYAN RAM VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR.ETC.

S. 294 CrPC | Defence Can't Be Given Chance To Discredit Prosecution Documents Which Were Admitted As Genuine By Them : Supreme Court

Q 7. The lessee-defendant claimed adverse possession of the plaintiff's property and resisted the plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession on the grounds of limitation. According to the defendant, since the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property in the year 1968, therefore filing of the suit for possession recovery in the year 1986 was barred by limitation. Decide.

a. The Suit would not be barred by limitation as the period for limitation would commence from the date of the defendant's possession becoming adverse and not from when the plaintiff acquires the right of ownership.

b. The defendant was holding possession of the suit property as a lessee then he could not claim an adverse possession over the property because the defendant's possession could only be termed as 'permissive possession'.

c. Unless the defendant qualifies its possession as adverse to the plaintiff his title could not be perfected through adverse possession which is open and continuous for the prescriptive period.

d. All of the Above

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that the period of limitation to prove title by adverse possession would commence from the date of the defendant's possession becoming adverse and not from when the plaintiff acquires the right of ownership.

Case Title: Neelam Gupta & Ors Versus Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.

Limitation For Adverse Possession Starts From When Possession Becomes Adverse, Not From When Plaintiff Got Ownership : Supreme Court

Q 8. Could the post-award interest be denied to the award holder noting that the contract between the parties does not permit the grant of post-award interest? Decide in terms of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

a. No, under Section 31(7)(b) an arbitral award shall carry an post-award interest.

b. Even an agreement between the parties not to grant post-award interest cannot eliminate the statutory right to post-award interest.

c. Grant of post-award interest is a statutory right and not subject to an agreement between the parties i.e., the party's right to interest for the post-award period can't be contracted out under Section 31(7)(b).

d. All of the above

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that the post-award period shall carry a rate of interest decided as per Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). The Court set aside the High Court's findings, which had denied the post-award interest to the award holder noting that the contract between the parties does not permit the grant of post-award interest.

Case Title: R.P. GARG VERSUS THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DEPARTMENT & ORS.

Arbitration | Arbitral Award Must Carry Post-Award Interest As Per S. 31(7)(b) : Supreme Court 

Q 9. Whether conditions stipulated under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 would come in a way when a sale of an immovable property is made to a minor?

a. Yes, a sale to a minor cannot be validated.

b. Yes, a sale cannot be made to the minor due to its incompetence.

c. No, there's no bar to transfer immovable property in favor of a minor by way of a sale deed.

d. Both (a) and (b)

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: According to the Court, the minor can become the transferee/owner by way of a sale deed and the conditions stipulated under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (persons competent to contract) would not come in the way of challenging the minor's capacity to contract because a sale can't be termed as a contract.

Case Title: Neelam Gupta & Ors Versus Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.

Sale Not A Contract; No Bar To Transfer Immovable Property To Minor : Supreme Court

Q 10. The FIR under Section 353 of IPC (Assault) was registered against the Indian Institute of Astrophysics employee for shouting and threatening the CAT's Staff while inspecting the files of his dismissal from service. Decide whether the offence of assault was made out.

a. Offence of assault is not made out.

b. Shouting and threatening someone doesn't amount to committing an offence of assault.

c. Both (a) and (b)

d. Shouting and threatening someone amounts to the use of criminal force and amounts to assault.

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: The Supreme Court has observed that shouting and threatening someone doesn't amount to committing an offence of assault.

Case Title: K. DHANANJAY VERSUS CABINET SECRETARY & ORS.

S. 353 IPC | Shouting & Threatening Someone Doesn't Amount To Assault : Supreme Court

(For feedback/suggestions, the author can be reached at yash@livelaw.in)