Weekly Legal Reasoning Revision Quiz || Law Entrance Exams || 19.09.2021

Section 378 of the IPC defines theft as, “Whoever, intending to dishonestly take any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property to such taking, is said to commit theft”.

As per Salmond, possession means, “the continuing exercise of a claim, to the exclusive use of a thing constitutes the possession of it”. Possession means, “the state of having, owning, or controlling something”. Although there are many kinds of possessions, some of the most important ones are constructive and joint possession.

Constructive Possession: It refers to situations where a person has no hands-on custody of an object. It can also be said that constructive possession exists where a person knows an object and the ability to control it (object), even if the person has no physical contact with it.

Intention (be it in any form, like dishonesty) in theft plays a major role. Hence, if B owes money to C for getting his car repaired and if C keeps the car with him lawfully, as a security for a debt, and B takes the car out of C’s possession, with the intention of depriving C of the property (car) which acted as a security for B’s debt, he commits theft, in as much as he takes it dishonestly. Thus, it can be concluded from the above situation that a person can also be convicted of stealing his property if he takes it dishonestly from another.

By the expression 'colour of a legal right' is meant not a false pretence, but a fair pretence, not a complete absence of claim, but a bonafide claim, however weak. This Court further observed that: If there be in the prisoner any fair pretence of property or right, or if he is brought into doubt at all, the court will direct an acquittal and refer to 1 Hale PC 509 that the best evidence is that the goods were taken quite openly. The law stated by East and Hale has always been the law on the subject of theft in India and numerous cases decided by Indian Courts are to be found in which these principles have been applied.

Now, the ordinary rule that mens rea may exist even with an honest ignorance of law is sometimes not sufficient for theft. A claim of right in good faith, if reasonable, saves the act of taking from being theft and where such a plea is raised by the accused it is mainly a question of fact whether such belief exists or not. The court in Sanyasi Apparao v. Boddepalli and Laksminarayana, observed: It is settled law that where a bond fide claim of right exists, it can be a good defence to a prosecution for theft. An act does not amount to theft, unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance of colour of a legal right.

Source: Extracted, edited and recreated from: blog.ipleaders.in, indiankanoon.org.

Section 378 of the IPC defines theft as, “Whoever, intending to dishonestly take any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property to such taking, is said to commit theft”.

As per Salmond, possession means, “the continuing exercise of a claim, to the exclusive use of a thing constitutes the possession of it”. Possession means, “the state of having, owning, or controlling something”. Although there are many kinds of possessions, some of the most important ones are constructive and joint possession.

Constructive Possession: It refers to situations where a person has no hands-on custody of an object. It can also be said that constructive possession exists where a person knows an object and the ability to control it (object), even if the person has no physical contact with it.

Intention (be it in any form, like dishonesty) in theft plays a major role. Hence, if B owes money to C for getting his car repaired and if C keeps the car with him lawfully, as a security for a debt, and B takes the car out of C’s possession, with the intention of depriving C of the property (car) which acted as a security for B’s debt, he commits theft, in as much as he takes it dishonestly. Thus, it can be concluded from the above situation that a person can also be convicted of stealing his property if he takes it dishonestly from another.

By the expression 'colour of a legal right' is meant not a false pretence, but a fair pretence, not a complete absence of claim, but a bonafide claim, however weak. This Court further observed that: If there be in the prisoner any fair pretence of property or right, or if he is brought into doubt at all, the court will direct an acquittal and refer to 1 Hale PC 509 that the best evidence is that the goods were taken quite openly. The law stated by East and Hale has always been the law on the subject of theft in India and numerous cases decided by Indian Courts are to be found in which these principles have been applied.

Now, the ordinary rule that mens rea may exist even with an honest ignorance of law is sometimes not sufficient for theft. A claim of right in good faith, if reasonable, saves the act of taking from being theft and where such a plea is raised by the accused it is mainly a question of fact whether such belief exists or not. The court in Sanyasi Apparao v. Boddepalli and Laksminarayana, observed: It is settled law that where a bond fide claim of right exists, it can be a good defence to a prosecution for theft. An act does not amount to theft, unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance of colour of a legal right.

Source: Extracted, edited and recreated from: blog.ipleaders.in, indiankanoon.org.

Section 378 of the IPC defines theft as, “Whoever, intending to dishonestly take any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property to such taking, is said to commit theft”.

As per Salmond, possession means, “the continuing exercise of a claim, to the exclusive use of a thing constitutes the possession of it”. Possession means, “the state of having, owning, or controlling something”. Although there are many kinds of possessions, some of the most important ones are constructive and joint possession.

Constructive Possession: It refers to situations where a person has no hands-on custody of an object. It can also be said that constructive possession exists where a person knows an object and the ability to control it (object), even if the person has no physical contact with it.

Intention (be it in any form, like dishonesty) in theft plays a major role. Hence, if B owes money to C for getting his car repaired and if C keeps the car with him lawfully, as a security for a debt, and B takes the car out of C’s possession, with the intention of depriving C of the property (car) which acted as a security for B’s debt, he commits theft, in as much as he takes it dishonestly. Thus, it can be concluded from the above situation that a person can also be convicted of stealing his property if he takes it dishonestly from another.

By the expression 'colour of a legal right' is meant not a false pretence, but a fair pretence, not a complete absence of claim, but a bonafide claim, however weak. This Court further observed that: If there be in the prisoner any fair pretence of property or right, or if he is brought into doubt at all, the court will direct an acquittal and refer to 1 Hale PC 509 that the best evidence is that the goods were taken quite openly. The law stated by East and Hale has always been the law on the subject of theft in India and numerous cases decided by Indian Courts are to be found in which these principles have been applied.

Now, the ordinary rule that mens rea may exist even with an honest ignorance of law is sometimes not sufficient for theft. A claim of right in good faith, if reasonable, saves the act of taking from being theft and where such a plea is raised by the accused it is mainly a question of fact whether such belief exists or not. The court in Sanyasi Apparao v. Boddepalli and Laksminarayana, observed: It is settled law that where a bond fide claim of right exists, it can be a good defence to a prosecution for theft. An act does not amount to theft, unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance of colour of a legal right.

Source: Extracted, edited and recreated from: blog.ipleaders.in, indiankanoon.org.

Section 378 of the IPC defines theft as, “Whoever, intending to dishonestly take any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property to such taking, is said to commit theft”.

As per Salmond, possession means, “the continuing exercise of a claim, to the exclusive use of a thing constitutes the possession of it”. Possession means, “the state of having, owning, or controlling something”. Although there are many kinds of possessions, some of the most important ones are constructive and joint possession.

Constructive Possession: It refers to situations where a person has no hands-on custody of an object. It can also be said that constructive possession exists where a person knows an object and the ability to control it (object), even if the person has no physical contact with it.

Intention (be it in any form, like dishonesty) in theft plays a major role. Hence, if B owes money to C for getting his car repaired and if C keeps the car with him lawfully, as a security for a debt, and B takes the car out of C’s possession, with the intention of depriving C of the property (car) which acted as a security for B’s debt, he commits theft, in as much as he takes it dishonestly. Thus, it can be concluded from the above situation that a person can also be convicted of stealing his property if he takes it dishonestly from another.

By the expression 'colour of a legal right' is meant not a false pretence, but a fair pretence, not a complete absence of claim, but a bonafide claim, however weak. This Court further observed that: If there be in the prisoner any fair pretence of property or right, or if he is brought into doubt at all, the court will direct an acquittal and refer to 1 Hale PC 509 that the best evidence is that the goods were taken quite openly. The law stated by East and Hale has always been the law on the subject of theft in India and numerous cases decided by Indian Courts are to be found in which these principles have been applied.

Now, the ordinary rule that mens rea may exist even with an honest ignorance of law is sometimes not sufficient for theft. A claim of right in good faith, if reasonable, saves the act of taking from being theft and where such a plea is raised by the accused it is mainly a question of fact whether such belief exists or not. The court in Sanyasi Apparao v. Boddepalli and Laksminarayana, observed: It is settled law that where a bond fide claim of right exists, it can be a good defence to a prosecution for theft. An act does not amount to theft, unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance of colour of a legal right.

Source: Extracted, edited and recreated from: blog.ipleaders.in, indiankanoon.org.

Section 378 of the IPC defines theft as, “Whoever, intending to dishonestly take any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property to such taking, is said to commit theft”.

As per Salmond, possession means, “the continuing exercise of a claim, to the exclusive use of a thing constitutes the possession of it”. Possession means, “the state of having, owning, or controlling something”. Although there are many kinds of possessions, some of the most important ones are constructive and joint possession.

Constructive Possession: It refers to situations where a person has no hands-on custody of an object. It can also be said that constructive possession exists where a person knows an object and the ability to control it (object), even if the person has no physical contact with it.

Intention (be it in any form, like dishonesty) in theft plays a major role. Hence, if B owes money to C for getting his car repaired and if C keeps the car with him lawfully, as a security for a debt, and B takes the car out of C’s possession, with the intention of depriving C of the property (car) which acted as a security for B’s debt, he commits theft, in as much as he takes it dishonestly. Thus, it can be concluded from the above situation that a person can also be convicted of stealing his property if he takes it dishonestly from another.

By the expression 'colour of a legal right' is meant not a false pretence, but a fair pretence, not a complete absence of claim, but a bonafide claim, however weak. This Court further observed that: If there be in the prisoner any fair pretence of property or right, or if he is brought into doubt at all, the court will direct an acquittal and refer to 1 Hale PC 509 that the best evidence is that the goods were taken quite openly. The law stated by East and Hale has always been the law on the subject of theft in India and numerous cases decided by Indian Courts are to be found in which these principles have been applied.

Now, the ordinary rule that mens rea may exist even with an honest ignorance of law is sometimes not sufficient for theft. A claim of right in good faith, if reasonable, saves the act of taking from being theft and where such a plea is raised by the accused it is mainly a question of fact whether such belief exists or not. The court in Sanyasi Apparao v. Boddepalli and Laksminarayana, observed: It is settled law that where a bond fide claim of right exists, it can be a good defence to a prosecution for theft. An act does not amount to theft, unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance of colour of a legal right.

Source: Extracted, edited and recreated from: blog.ipleaders.in, indiankanoon.org.

There has been a sea of change with the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 owing to the neoteric concepts of divorce and judicial separation being recognized under the law. This Act has been through various changes while accommodating the different requirements of the Hindu society. The parties earlier had options to claim divorce on the basis of adultery, cruelty, insanity and other grounds available under Section 13 . Even though divorce by mutual consent was introduced through an amendment in 1976, there still existed issues wherein both parties suffered from a marriage which lacked any substance and had no hope for reconciliation but one party continued the long legal procedure and did not let the divorce take place. The concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage was pitched in.

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage comes under the breakdown theory where the marriage is supposed to have reached a point wherein there is complete breakdown of the institution with no scope for retrieval of that previously existing bond.

Mutual consent as a ground of divorce is not always forthcoming and in many cases, there is much dilly-dallying by one or the other party. Sometimes anxious couples needing separation cannot avail of the remedy of divorce by mutual consent, merely because one of the parties tries to bargain in the matter or put conditions which may even be against public policy. However, the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as yet, has not been inserted in the divorce law, despite a debate on this aspect by the Law

Commission in two reports: The Law Commission, in its reports in 1978 and 2009, recommended the Centre to take "immediate action" to amend the laws with regard to "irretrievable breakdown" where a "wedlock became a deadlock".

As the Centre failed to act on the suggestions, the apex court has from time to time invoked Article 142 to grant divorce even though existing laws do not recognise the ground for divorce.

In Munish Kakkar v Nidhi Kakkar, the appellant and the respondent got married in accordance with Hindu rites in the year 2000. The parties co-lived for a period of two months, after which the respondent wife went to Canada, where she eventually obtained citizenship in 2002. The appellant alleged that the respondent went to Canada without his consent. The respondent returned to Indian only after she got her Canadian citizenship in 2002. The parties had continuous disputes for the last 15 years and were not able to live together.

The Supreme Court noticed while granting the divorce: the relationship appears to have deteriorated to such an extent that both parties see little good in each other; though the respondent insists that she wants to stay with the appellant. In our view, this insistence is only to somehow not let a decree of divorce be passed against the respondent. For that, it would not be appropriate to blame one or the other party, but the fact is that nothing remains in this marriage. The counselor‘s report also opines so. Marriage is a dead letter. However, no party should be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong.

As the statue does not provided for the provision for the divorce for irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the Court decided to us special powers provided to the Supreme Court as per Article 142 of constitution of India provide a unique power to the Supreme Court, to do ―complete justice‖ between the parties.

Source: Extracted, edited and recreated from: A .G. Gupta, Hindu Law, 21st Edition; Dr. S.R. Myneni, Hindu Law; blog.ipleaders.in.

There has been a sea of change with the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 owing to the neoteric concepts of divorce and judicial separation being recognized under the law. This Act has been through various changes while accommodating the different requirements of the Hindu society. The parties earlier had options to claim divorce on the basis of adultery, cruelty, insanity and other grounds available under Section 13 . Even though divorce by mutual consent was introduced through an amendment in 1976, there still existed issues wherein both parties suffered from a marriage which lacked any substance and had no hope for reconciliation but one party continued the long legal procedure and did not let the divorce take place. The concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage was pitched in.

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage comes under the breakdown theory where the marriage is supposed to have reached a point wherein there is complete breakdown of the institution with no scope for retrieval of that previously existing bond.

Mutual consent as a ground of divorce is not always forthcoming and in many cases, there is much dilly-dallying by one or the other party. Sometimes anxious couples needing separation cannot avail of the remedy of divorce by mutual consent, merely because one of the parties tries to bargain in the matter or put conditions which may even be against public policy. However, the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as yet, has not been inserted in the divorce law, despite a debate on this aspect by the Law

Commission in two reports: The Law Commission, in its reports in 1978 and 2009, recommended the Centre to take "immediate action" to amend the laws with regard to "irretrievable breakdown" where a "wedlock became a deadlock".

As the Centre failed to act on the suggestions, the apex court has from time to time invoked Article 142 to grant divorce even though existing laws do not recognise the ground for divorce.

In Munish Kakkar v Nidhi Kakkar, the appellant and the respondent got married in accordance with Hindu rites in the year 2000. The parties co-lived for a period of two months, after which the respondent wife went to Canada, where she eventually obtained citizenship in 2002. The appellant alleged that the respondent went to Canada without his consent. The respondent returned to Indian only after she got her Canadian citizenship in 2002. The parties had continuous disputes for the last 15 years and were not able to live together.

The Supreme Court noticed while granting the divorce: the relationship appears to have deteriorated to such an extent that both parties see little good in each other; though the respondent insists that she wants to stay with the appellant. In our view, this insistence is only to somehow not let a decree of divorce be passed against the respondent. For that, it would not be appropriate to blame one or the other party, but the fact is that nothing remains in this marriage. The counselor‘s report also opines so. Marriage is a dead letter. However, no party should be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong.

As the statue does not provided for the provision for the divorce for irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the Court decided to us special powers provided to the Supreme Court as per Article 142 of constitution of India provide a unique power to the Supreme Court, to do ―complete justice‖ between the parties.

Source: Extracted, edited and recreated from: A .G. Gupta, Hindu Law, 21st Edition; Dr. S.R. Myneni, Hindu Law; blog.ipleaders.in.

There has been a sea of change with the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 owing to the neoteric concepts of divorce and judicial separation being recognized under the law. This Act has been through various changes while accommodating the different requirements of the Hindu society. The parties earlier had options to claim divorce on the basis of adultery, cruelty, insanity and other grounds available under Section 13 . Even though divorce by mutual consent was introduced through an amendment in 1976, there still existed issues wherein both parties suffered from a marriage which lacked any substance and had no hope for reconciliation but one party continued the long legal procedure and did not let the divorce take place. The concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage was pitched in.

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage comes under the breakdown theory where the marriage is supposed to have reached a point wherein there is complete breakdown of the institution with no scope for retrieval of that previously existing bond.

Mutual consent as a ground of divorce is not always forthcoming and in many cases, there is much dilly-dallying by one or the other party. Sometimes anxious couples needing separation cannot avail of the remedy of divorce by mutual consent, merely because one of the parties tries to bargain in the matter or put conditions which may even be against public policy. However, the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as yet, has not been inserted in the divorce law, despite a debate on this aspect by the Law

Commission in two reports: The Law Commission, in its reports in 1978 and 2009, recommended the Centre to take "immediate action" to amend the laws with regard to "irretrievable breakdown" where a "wedlock became a deadlock".

As the Centre failed to act on the suggestions, the apex court has from time to time invoked Article 142 to grant divorce even though existing laws do not recognise the ground for divorce.

In Munish Kakkar v Nidhi Kakkar, the appellant and the respondent got married in accordance with Hindu rites in the year 2000. The parties co-lived for a period of two months, after which the respondent wife went to Canada, where she eventually obtained citizenship in 2002. The appellant alleged that the respondent went to Canada without his consent. The respondent returned to Indian only after she got her Canadian citizenship in 2002. The parties had continuous disputes for the last 15 years and were not able to live together.

The Supreme Court noticed while granting the divorce: the relationship appears to have deteriorated to such an extent that both parties see little good in each other; though the respondent insists that she wants to stay with the appellant. In our view, this insistence is only to somehow not let a decree of divorce be passed against the respondent. For that, it would not be appropriate to blame one or the other party, but the fact is that nothing remains in this marriage. The counselor‘s report also opines so. Marriage is a dead letter. However, no party should be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong.

As the statue does not provided for the provision for the divorce for irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the Court decided to us special powers provided to the Supreme Court as per Article 142 of constitution of India provide a unique power to the Supreme Court, to do ―complete justice‖ between the parties.

Source: Extracted, edited and recreated from: A .G. Gupta, Hindu Law, 21st Edition; Dr. S.R. Myneni, Hindu Law; blog.ipleaders.in.

There has been a sea of change with the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 owing to the neoteric concepts of divorce and judicial separation being recognized under the law. This Act has been through various changes while accommodating the different requirements of the Hindu society. The parties earlier had options to claim divorce on the basis of adultery, cruelty, insanity and other grounds available under Section 13 . Even though divorce by mutual consent was introduced through an amendment in 1976, there still existed issues wherein both parties suffered from a marriage which lacked any substance and had no hope for reconciliation but one party continued the long legal procedure and did not let the divorce take place. The concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage was pitched in.

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage comes under the breakdown theory where the marriage is supposed to have reached a point wherein there is complete breakdown of the institution with no scope for retrieval of that previously existing bond.

Mutual consent as a ground of divorce is not always forthcoming and in many cases, there is much dilly-dallying by one or the other party. Sometimes anxious couples needing separation cannot avail of the remedy of divorce by mutual consent, merely because one of the parties tries to bargain in the matter or put conditions which may even be against public policy. However, the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as yet, has not been inserted in the divorce law, despite a debate on this aspect by the Law

Commission in two reports: The Law Commission, in its reports in 1978 and 2009, recommended the Centre to take "immediate action" to amend the laws with regard to "irretrievable breakdown" where a "wedlock became a deadlock".

As the Centre failed to act on the suggestions, the apex court has from time to time invoked Article 142 to grant divorce even though existing laws do not recognise the ground for divorce.

In Munish Kakkar v Nidhi Kakkar, the appellant and the respondent got married in accordance with Hindu rites in the year 2000. The parties co-lived for a period of two months, after which the respondent wife went to Canada, where she eventually obtained citizenship in 2002. The appellant alleged that the respondent went to Canada without his consent. The respondent returned to Indian only after she got her Canadian citizenship in 2002. The parties had continuous disputes for the last 15 years and were not able to live together.

The Supreme Court noticed while granting the divorce: the relationship appears to have deteriorated to such an extent that both parties see little good in each other; though the respondent insists that she wants to stay with the appellant. In our view, this insistence is only to somehow not let a decree of divorce be passed against the respondent. For that, it would not be appropriate to blame one or the other party, but the fact is that nothing remains in this marriage. The counselor‘s report also opines so. Marriage is a dead letter. However, no party should be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong.

As the statue does not provided for the provision for the divorce for irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the Court decided to us special powers provided to the Supreme Court as per Article 142 of constitution of India provide a unique power to the Supreme Court, to do ―complete justice‖ between the parties.

Source: Extracted, edited and recreated from: A .G. Gupta, Hindu Law, 21st Edition; Dr. S.R. Myneni, Hindu Law; blog.ipleaders.in.

There has been a sea of change with the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 owing to the neoteric concepts of divorce and judicial separation being recognized under the law. This Act has been through various changes while accommodating the different requirements of the Hindu society. The parties earlier had options to claim divorce on the basis of adultery, cruelty, insanity and other grounds available under Section 13 . Even though divorce by mutual consent was introduced through an amendment in 1976, there still existed issues wherein both parties suffered from a marriage which lacked any substance and had no hope for reconciliation but one party continued the long legal procedure and did not let the divorce take place. The concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage was pitched in.

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage comes under the breakdown theory where the marriage is supposed to have reached a point wherein there is complete breakdown of the institution with no scope for retrieval of that previously existing bond.

Mutual consent as a ground of divorce is not always forthcoming and in many cases, there is much dilly-dallying by one or the other party. Sometimes anxious couples needing separation cannot avail of the remedy of divorce by mutual consent, merely because one of the parties tries to bargain in the matter or put conditions which may even be against public policy. However, the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as yet, has not been inserted in the divorce law, despite a debate on this aspect by the Law

Commission in two reports: The Law Commission, in its reports in 1978 and 2009, recommended the Centre to take "immediate action" to amend the laws with regard to "irretrievable breakdown" where a "wedlock became a deadlock".

As the Centre failed to act on the suggestions, the apex court has from time to time invoked Article 142 to grant divorce even though existing laws do not recognise the ground for divorce.

In Munish Kakkar v Nidhi Kakkar, the appellant and the respondent got married in accordance with Hindu rites in the year 2000. The parties co-lived for a period of two months, after which the respondent wife went to Canada, where she eventually obtained citizenship in 2002. The appellant alleged that the respondent went to Canada without his consent. The respondent returned to Indian only after she got her Canadian citizenship in 2002. The parties had continuous disputes for the last 15 years and were not able to live together.

The Supreme Court noticed while granting the divorce: the relationship appears to have deteriorated to such an extent that both parties see little good in each other; though the respondent insists that she wants to stay with the appellant. In our view, this insistence is only to somehow not let a decree of divorce be passed against the respondent. For that, it would not be appropriate to blame one or the other party, but the fact is that nothing remains in this marriage. The counselor‘s report also opines so. Marriage is a dead letter. However, no party should be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong.

As the statue does not provided for the provision for the divorce for irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the Court decided to us special powers provided to the Supreme Court as per Article 142 of constitution of India provide a unique power to the Supreme Court, to do ―complete justice‖ between the parties.

Source: Extracted, edited and recreated from: A .G. Gupta, Hindu Law, 21st Edition; Dr. S.R. Myneni, Hindu Law; blog.ipleaders.in.