Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT UG 2026
1. Principle:
Entering another’s property without consent amounts to trespass.
Facts:
A person entered a private garden to collect a ball that had accidentally fallen there.
A person entered a private garden to collect a ball that had accidentally fallen there.
Options:
A. The person is guilty of trespass.
B. The person is not guilty because there was no intention to harm.
C. The person is guilty since consent was not obtained.
D. The person is not guilty because retrieving one’s own property is justified.
A. The person is guilty of trespass.
B. The person is not guilty because there was no intention to harm.
C. The person is guilty since consent was not obtained.
D. The person is not guilty because retrieving one’s own property is justified.
Answer: C
Explanation: In trespass, intention is irrelevant. Unauthorized entry itself is sufficient.
Explanation: In trespass, intention is irrelevant. Unauthorized entry itself is sufficient.
2. Principle:
A contract made by a minor is void from the beginning.
Facts:
A person aged 16 entered into an agreement to repay a loan with interest.
A person aged 16 entered into an agreement to repay a loan with interest.
Options:
A. The contract is valid because it was signed.
B. The contract is void since one party is a minor.
C. The contract is voidable at the option of the minor.
D. The contract becomes valid if approved by parents.
A. The contract is valid because it was signed.
B. The contract is void since one party is a minor.
C. The contract is voidable at the option of the minor.
D. The contract becomes valid if approved by parents.
Answer: B
Explanation: Agreements by minors are void ab initio and cannot be enforced.
Explanation: Agreements by minors are void ab initio and cannot be enforced.
3. Principle:
Self-defense is justified if the response is proportionate to the threat.
Facts:
During an attempt to steal a wallet, the victim struck the thief with a slap.
During an attempt to steal a wallet, the victim struck the thief with a slap.
Options:
A. The act is unjustified since violence was used.
B. The act is justified as the response was proportionate.
C. The act is unjustified because the victim could have walked away.
D. The act is justified since theft is a crime.
A. The act is unjustified since violence was used.
B. The act is justified as the response was proportionate.
C. The act is unjustified because the victim could have walked away.
D. The act is justified since theft is a crime.
Answer: B
Explanation: A slap is proportionate to an attempt at theft, hence valid under self-defense.
Explanation: A slap is proportionate to an attempt at theft, hence valid under self-defense.
4. Principle:
No one can transfer a better title to goods than what they possess.
Facts:
A stolen bicycle was sold to an innocent purchaser.
A stolen bicycle was sold to an innocent purchaser.
Options:
A. The purchaser gets a valid title due to innocence.
B. The purchaser does not get a valid title as the seller had none.
C. The purchaser can keep the bicycle and sue the seller.
D. The purchaser must return the bicycle but may retain the price.
A. The purchaser gets a valid title due to innocence.
B. The purchaser does not get a valid title as the seller had none.
C. The purchaser can keep the bicycle and sue the seller.
D. The purchaser must return the bicycle but may retain the price.
Answer: B
Explanation: The seller had no ownership; therefore, no title could pass to the purchaser.
Explanation: The seller had no ownership; therefore, no title could pass to the purchaser.
5. Principle:
Killing during a sudden quarrel without pre-planned intention is culpable homicide, not murder.
Facts:
During a heated exchange, a blow was struck causing death.
During a heated exchange, a blow was struck causing death.
Options:
A. This is murder.
B. This is not an offence since the quarrel was sudden.
C. This is culpable homicide.
D. This is only grievous hurt.
A. This is murder.
B. This is not an offence since the quarrel was sudden.
C. This is culpable homicide.
D. This is only grievous hurt.
Answer: C
Explanation: Absence of premeditation makes it culpable homicide, not murder.
Explanation: Absence of premeditation makes it culpable homicide, not murder.
6. Principle:
Silence does not constitute acceptance in contracts unless there is a legal duty to respond.
Facts:
An offer stated, “If you do not reply, it will be treated as acceptance.” No reply was given.
An offer stated, “If you do not reply, it will be treated as acceptance.” No reply was given.
Options:
A. Silence amounts to acceptance.
B. Silence does not amount to acceptance.
C. Silence amounts to partial acceptance.
D. Silence amounts to acceptance because the offeror set the condition.
A. Silence amounts to acceptance.
B. Silence does not amount to acceptance.
C. Silence amounts to partial acceptance.
D. Silence amounts to acceptance because the offeror set the condition.
Answer: B
Explanation: The law does not recognize silence as acceptance unless duty to speak exists.
Explanation: The law does not recognize silence as acceptance unless duty to speak exists.
7. Principle:
Negligence occurs when reasonable care is not taken, causing harm to another.
Facts:
A surgical instrument was left inside a patient after an operation.
A surgical instrument was left inside a patient after an operation.
Options:
A. The doctor is liable for negligence.
B. The doctor is not liable as errors occur naturally.
C. The hospital is liable but not the doctor.
D. The patient is responsible for consenting to the surgery.
A. The doctor is liable for negligence.
B. The doctor is not liable as errors occur naturally.
C. The hospital is liable but not the doctor.
D. The patient is responsible for consenting to the surgery.
Answer: A
Explanation: Leaving an instrument shows lack of reasonable care, which is negligence.
Explanation: Leaving an instrument shows lack of reasonable care, which is negligence.
8. Principle:
A valid marriage requires free consent of both parties.
Facts:
One party was compelled by family pressure to marry.
One party was compelled by family pressure to marry.
Options:
A. The marriage is valid because marriage is a duty.
B. The marriage is void since there was no free consent.
C. The marriage is voidable at the option of the coerced party.
D. The marriage becomes valid if consummated.
A. The marriage is valid because marriage is a duty.
B. The marriage is void since there was no free consent.
C. The marriage is voidable at the option of the coerced party.
D. The marriage becomes valid if consummated.
Answer: C
Explanation: Forced consent makes the marriage voidable at the option of the pressured party.
Explanation: Forced consent makes the marriage voidable at the option of the pressured party.
9. Principle:
Defamation is making false statements that harm reputation when published to others.
Facts:
A person falsely accused another of theft in a private group of friends.
A person falsely accused another of theft in a private group of friends.
Options:
A. This is defamation since reputation is harmed.
B. This is not defamation because the group was small.
C. This is defamation because publication to even a few people is sufficient.
D. This is not defamation because it was merely an opinion.
A. This is defamation since reputation is harmed.
B. This is not defamation because the group was small.
C. This is defamation because publication to even a few people is sufficient.
D. This is not defamation because it was merely an opinion.
Answer: C
Explanation: Communication of false statements to even a limited audience can amount to defamation.
Explanation: Communication of false statements to even a limited audience can amount to defamation.
10. Principle:
Right of private defense extends to causing death when faced with a threat of death or grievous harm.
Facts:
A person was attacked with a knife and responded by shooting the attacker.
A person was attacked with a knife and responded by shooting the attacker.
Options:
A. The defender is guilty of murder.
B. The defender is not guilty because the act was in private defense.
C. The defender is guilty because escape was possible.
D. The defender is guilty of culpable homicide.
A. The defender is guilty of murder.
B. The defender is not guilty because the act was in private defense.
C. The defender is guilty because escape was possible.
D. The defender is guilty of culpable homicide.
Answer: B
Explanation: A life-threatening knife attack justifies the use of deadly force in self-defense.
Explanation: A life-threatening knife attack justifies the use of deadly force in self-defense.
Subscribe for updates
Join 10,000+ subscribers.
RU
Ruchika Mohapatra
Contributing author
Have a doubt about this?Ask Doubts
