UPHESC Assistant Professor Law 2025 PYQs

Concept: Under Sunni (Hanafi) law, marriage with a fifth wife while four are alive is irregular (fasid), not void – the bar is temporary and disappears if one wife dies or is divorced.

1. Other irregular marriages: without witnesses, during iddat, with a non-kitabia, unlawful conjunction.
2. Under Shia law such a marriage is void (batil).

Short trick: Fifth wife (Sunni) = Fasid; removable bar = irregular.

Concept: Section 12 HAMA: from the date of adoption the child is deemed the child of the adoptive parents for all purposes, and ties with the birth family are severed (with provisos).

1. Sec. 11 – other conditions for a valid adoption; Sec. 13 – right of adoptive parents to dispose of property; Sec. 14 – determination of adoptive mother.

Short trick: 11 conditions → 12 effects → 13 property.

Concept: Winfield called it the ‘Law of Tort’ (one general principle of liability); Salmond called it the ‘Law of Torts’ (pigeon-hole theory).

1. ‘Law of Torts’ is Salmond’s, not Austin’s.
2. ‘Tortum’ is a Latin word (to twist), not French.
3. Tort violates a right in rem (against the world at large), not in personam.

Short trick: Winfield = Tort (singular, wide net); Salmond = Torts (pigeon-holes).

Concept: In Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) Lord Atkin delivered the leading speech laying down the ‘neighbour principle’ (snail in the ginger-beer bottle).

1. Majority: Lords Atkin, Thankerton, Macmillan; dissent: Buckmaster, Tomlin.
2. Lord Cairns – Rylands v. Fletcher (HL, 1868); Viscount Simonds – Wagon Mound (1961).

Short trick: Atkin = ‘Love your neighbour’ in law.

Concept: ‘The King can do no wrong’ is a doctrine of sovereign immunity (State liability), not a general principle of tortious liability.

1. Injuria sine damno (Ashby v. White) – legal injury without damage is actionable.
2. Damnum sine injuria (Gloucester Grammar School) – damage without legal injury is not actionable.
3. Volenti non fit injuria – general defence of consent.

Short trick: Damnum/Injuria/Volenti = basics of tort; ‘King’ = State immunity.

Concept: Res ipsa loquitur (‘the thing speaks for itself’) is a rule of evidence: it raises an inference of negligence and shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.

1. It applies in negligence cases (e.g. Byrne v. Boadle – barrel falling from a window) but does not itself create a head of liability.
2. Conditions: thing under defendant’s control; accident would not ordinarily happen without negligence; cause unexplained.

Short trick: Res ipsa = proof rule (burden shifts), used in negligence.

Concept: Blackburn J. (Court of Exchequer Chamber, 1866) stated the rule: a person who brings and keeps on his land anything likely to do mischief if it escapes is prima facie answerable for all damage from its escape; the House of Lords (Lord Cairns) affirmed it in 1868, adding ‘non-natural use’.

1. Justice P. N. Bhagwati gave absolute liability in M. C. Mehta (1987), not strict liability.
2. Lord Atkin – neighbour principle (negligence).

Short trick: Blackburn = Strict; Bhagwati = Absolute.

Concept: In the Oleum gas leak case (M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, decided 20 Dec 1986, reported AIR 1987 SC 1086) a 5-judge bench headed by CJ P. N. Bhagwati laid down absolute liability for hazardous industries – no exceptions of Rylands v. Fletcher.

1. Compensation must be related to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise (deterrent effect).
2. Kuldeep Singh – the ‘green judge’ of later M. C. Mehta cases; Krishna Iyer was never CJI.

Short trick: Bhagwati = Absolute (Oleum, Shriram Foods).

Concept: Match each case with its tort.

1. Bourhill v. Young (1943) – negligence (nervous shock; plaintiff not a foreseeable ‘neighbour’) → iii.
2. Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) – private nuisance (‘coming to the nuisance’ no defence) → ii.
3. Gloucester Grammar School case (1410) – damnum sine injuria → iv.
4. Newstead v. London Express Newspapers (1940) – unintentional defamation → i.

Short trick: Code a-iii, b-ii, c-iv, d-i: only option B has c–iv and d–i.

Concept: In Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) the advertisement was a general offer to the world, continuing in nature – anyone who used the ball as directed and caught influenza could accept it by performance.

1. Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt (1913) – general offer, but acceptance needs knowledge of the offer.
2. Banwari Lal v. Sukhdarshan Dayal – lowest/highest bid is not acceptance by itself; McGregor v. McGregor – compromise as consideration.

Short trick: Carlill = General + Continuing + Acceptance by performance.

Concept: Under Sec. 56 the contract is frustrated only when performance becomes impossible or unlawful; mere commercial hardship, rise in cost or difficulty does not frustrate it.

1. Destruction of subject-matter – Taylor v. Caldwell.
2. Non-occurrence of contemplated event – Krell v. Henry (coronation case).
3. Death/incapacity in personal contracts – Robinson v. Davison.
4. Hardship is no excuse – Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur; Alopi Parshad v. UOI.

Short trick: Hard ≠ Impossible.

Concept: Explanation 2 to Sec. 25 Contract Act: an agreement to which the promisor’s consent is freely given is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate.

1. Consideration must exist, be real/valuable and lawful (Secs. 2(d), 23).
2. Inadequacy may only be evidence of absence of free consent (Illustration (f)).

Short trick: Law wants SOME consideration, not ENOUGH.

Concept: Sec. 5: acceptance may be revoked before communication of acceptance is complete as against the acceptor; Sec. 4: that happens when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer.

1. So a posted acceptance can be revoked (e.g. by telegram/faster means) before the letter reaches the proposer.
2. Indian law, unlike English law, allows revocation of acceptance.

Short trick: Acceptor’s window closes when the proposer KNOWS.

Concept: Sec. 8: performance of the conditions of a proposal, or acceptance of consideration offered with it, is an acceptance – no separate communication is needed (Carlill-type general offers).

1. Sec. 7 – acceptance must be absolute and in the prescribed manner.
2. Sec. 4 – communication when complete; Sec. 9 – express and implied promises.

Short trick: 8 = Act, don’t write.

Concept: Sir William Anson defined a wager as “a promise to give money or money’s worth upon the determination or ascertainment of an uncertain event”.

1. Hawkins J. (Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., 1892) gave the longer definition of a wagering contract – two persons holding opposite views on a future uncertain event, one to win and the other to lose.
2. Sec. 30 Contract Act: agreements by way of wager are void.

Short trick: Short definition = Anson; long ‘opposite views’ definition = Hawkins.

Concept: Sec. 20 Contract Act: bilateral mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement makes the agreement void.

1. Unilateral mistake does not make it voidable (Sec. 22).
2. Mistake of Indian law is no excuse; mistake of foreign law is treated as mistake of fact (Sec. 21).
3. Example: Couturier v. Hastie – goods already perished.

Short trick: Both mistaken (bilateral) → Void.

Concept: Sec. 21(2) LSA Act: every award of a Lok Adalat is final and binding on all parties, and no appeal lies to any court against it.

1. Sec. 21(1): the award is deemed a decree of a civil court; court fee paid is refunded.
2. Sec. 20 – cognizance of cases; Sec. 22 – powers of Lok Adalat.

Short trick: 21(1) = decree; 21(2) = final, no appeal.

Concept: The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in force from 9 November 1995) gave Lok Adalats statutory status (Chapter VI, Secs. 19–22).

1. Constitutional basis for free legal aid is Art. 39A (42nd Amendment), but Lok Adalats are created by the 1987 Act.
2. Permanent Lok Adalats were added by the 2002 amendment (Chapter VIA).

Short trick: 1987 Act, live from 9 Nov 1995 (National Legal Services Day).

Concept: Sec. 22 LSA Act is titled ‘Powers of Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat’ – powers of a civil court under CPC (summoning witnesses, discovery, receiving evidence on affidavit, requisitioning records).

1. Sec. 22(3): every proceeding is a judicial proceeding for IPC Secs. 193, 219, 228; Lok Adalat is a civil court for Sec. 195 and Chapter XXVI CrPC.
2. Secs. 27, 28, 29, 29A – rule-making powers of Central/State Govt and authorities.

Short trick: 22 = powers; 27–29A = rules.

Concept: Chapter VI of the LSA Act on Lok Adalats runs from Section 19 to 22: Sec. 19 – organisation, 20 – cognizance, 21 – award, 22 – powers.

1. Section 18 deals with accounts and audit (Chapter V – finance), not organisation of Lok Adalat.

Short trick: Lok Adalat chapter = 19-20-21-22 (Organise, Cognise, Award, Power).