AILET LLM Entrance Exam Sample Paper

All India Law Entrance Test LLM Entrance Exam Practice Questions:

Question: Can a minor husband be a guardian of his wife and children under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
(a) no, as the guardian must be a major
(b) no, as a minor, he cannot properly safeguard the interest of his wife and children
(c) yes, if he is above the age of fifteen years
(d) yes, in all cases
Ans. (d)

Question: Who analysed law from the point of view of superiority of church over the state?
(a) Thomas Aquinas
(b) David Hume
(c) Blackstone
(d) John Locke
Ans: (a)

Related: concepts of Democracy quizlet

Question: Who wrote ”The Institutions of Private Law and Their Social Functions”?
(a) Karl Renner
(b) M.R. Cohen
(c) A.M. Honore
(d) J.W.C. Turner
Ans: (a)

Question: A claim implies a correlative duty, but a __________ does not. Y’s __________ to wear a bowler hat is not correlative to a duty in Y not to interfere, but Y’s duty not to interfere is correlative to X’s claim against Y that he shall not interfere.
Fill in the blank in the above statement by selecting only one judicial relation –
(a) liability
(b) power
(c) liberty
(d) no-right
Ans: (c)

Question: Which school of jurisprudence believes that there are more important obligations, higher ideals, than obedience to the positive law of the State
(a) Historical School
(b) Functional School
(c) Positivism
(d) Natural Law
Ans: (d)

Question: Who thought that when man lived according to reason, he was living naturally?
(a) Romans of fourth century
(b) Egyptians
(c) Karl Rlewellyn
(d) Stoics
Ans: (d)

Question: Which of the following is not a legal person?
(a) an idol in a Hindu temple
(b) a partnership firm
(c) a private limited company
(d) Life Insurance Corporation of India
Ans: (b)

Question: With whom would you associate primary rules of obligation?
(a) John Austin
(b) John Salmond
(c) H.L.A. Hart
(d) Karl Renner
Ans: (c)

Question: Who said that law is a hierarchy of norms?
(a) Alf Ross
(b) S. Perry
(c) Hans Kelsen
(d) von Savigny
Ans: (c)

Related: Ancient history quiz

Question: To whom would you attribute the following?
“Whenever a person looked like an owner in relation to a thing, he has possession of it, unless possession was denied to him by special rules based on practical convenience.”
(a) Ihering
(b) von Savigny
(c) John Salmond
(d) John Austin
Ans: (a)

Question: Who propounded an egalitarian theory of justice?
(a) Ronald Dworkin
(b) Milton Friedmann
(c) John Rawls
(d) Robert Nozick
Ans: (c)

Question: Which of the following maxims means that treaties neither impose obligations nor confer rights on third states?
(a) pacta suntservanda
(b) pacta terries nec nocent nec prosunt
(c) jus cogens
(d) rebus sic stantibus
Ans: (b)

Question: Wilful refusal of the defendant to consummate the marriage is a ground for divorce under which of the following legislation?
(a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(b) Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872
(c) Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936
(d) Special Marriage Act, 1954
Ans: (c)

Question: ‘Doli incapax’ in criminal law describes the liability of –
(a) an insane person
(b) a child below seven years of age
(c) a child below twelve years of age
(d) a person under the influence of drugs / intoxicants
Ans: (b)

Related: Economics practice questions

Question: A married male Hindu gets a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage and a son is born of the second wedlock. The son is –
(a) legitimate, but can inherit only from his mother
(b) illegitimate and can inherit only from his mother
(c) legitimate and can inherit from all his relations
(d) legitimate and can inherit from his parents only
Ans: (d)

Question: Defamation is the publication of a statement resulting in –
(a) Injury to one’s dignity of self respect
(b) Injury to the esteem or regard in which one is held by others
(c) Injury to the property
(d) Injury to the body
Ans: (b)

Question: The wall of an old building situated on the main road collapsed and three persons A, B and C then passing by the road were seriously injured. They sue the owner of the building for damages.
(a) They cannot succeed because they should have been careful while walking on the street.
(b) They cannot succeed because they cannot prove the fault of the owner.
(c) They can succeed because they suffered injuries.
(d) They can succeed because law will presume fault of the owner who had control over the factors that caused the accident.
Ans: (d)

Question: Under the Prohibition of Child Marriages Act, 2006, a child marriage is –
(a) void in all cases
(b) valid but the parents of the children can be punished
(c) voidable at the option of the child party to the marriage till such child attains majority
(d) voidable at the option of the girl child till she attains the age of 18 years
Ans: (c)

Related: main branches of Biology

Question: D left his horse and van unattended in a crowded street and went to see his friend in the adjoining street. While D was away, a dog barked and pounced on the horse. The horse got frightened and started running furiously along the road with the van. P, a pedestrian, saw X in danger of being run over and in order to save him pushed him away, but in doing so, he himself was injured. P sues D for damages:
(a) D is liable to pay damages to P.
(b) D can plead volenti non fit injuria.
(c) D can take the defence of inevitable accident.
(d) D can plead novus actus interveniens.
Ans: (a)

Question: Chemical Private Limited, a company engaged in manufacturing of chemicals, stored toxic gas in tanks. Due to heavy and extraordinary rains, the tank collapsed and the gas leaked. Himanshu, who was within the Chemical Private Limited and Lakshya, who was away from the Chemical Private Limited sustained injuries. They sued Chemical Private Limited for damages.
(a) Chemical Private Limited is not liable as gas leaked due to act of God.
(b) Chemical Private Limited is not liable as he was not negligent
(c) Chemical Private Limited is liable to pay damages to Lakshya only
(d) Chemical Private Limited is liable to pay damages to Himanshu and Lakshya.
Ans: (d)

Related: How does India elect its president?

Question: The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 enables a Muslim woman to –
(a) obtain divorce against the wishes of her husband
(b) retain the custody of her children after divorce
(c) claim maintenance from her husband
(d) retain only her Mahr amount after her marriage
Ans: (c)

Question: Where the words alleged to be defamatory do not appear to be such on their face, the plaintiff must prove the latent or secondary meaning which makes the statement defamatory. Such explanatory statements are called
(a) Innuendo
(b) Slander
(c) Libel
(d) Ubi jus ibi remedium
Ans: (a)

Question: Motive or state of the mind of tortfeasor is irrelevant in the torts of
(a) defamation and deceit
(b) trespass and negligence
(c) deceit and malicious prosecution
(d) defamation and conspiracy
Ans: (b)

Question: Who said that at the most law may be considered as de-psychological command?
(a) John Austin
(b) John Salmond
(c) von Savigny
(d) Hans Kelsen
Ans: (d)

Question: Who said that “Law grows with the growth and strengthens with the strength of the people, and finally dies away as the nation loses its nationality” –
(a) J. Stone
(b) H.L.A. Hart
(c) von Savigny
(d) Lon Fuller
Ans: (c)

Question: The movement of progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from _____________ to contract.
(a) liberty
(b) equality
(c) torts
(d) status
Ans: (d)

Choose the most appropriate answer (Questions based on Factual Situation):

Principle: A person has got a right to defend his life or that of any other person.
Factual Situation: Shweta was returning home from work at about 10:00 pm. Rakesh driver dropped her at the gate of her residence. Suddenly she heard a male voice telling her to hand over her purse and Mobile. She screamed to draw the attention of Rakesh but Rakesh did not hear her and drove away. When she looked back she saw a man pointing a dagger at her. She was about to hand over her purse to the man. Hearing her cries, her neighbour, Major Najmul Ali, a military officer, looked through his window and saw the scene. He took out his gun and shot the man dead, later identified as Ashish.
(a) Major Najmul Ali is liable for the death of Ashish as there was no threat to his life or property.
(b) Major Najmul Ali is not liable for the death of Ashish as he was trying to protect the life of his neighbour.
(c) Major Najmul Ali is liable for the death of Ashish as he should not have shot Ashish dead, but could have just threatened.
(d) Major Najmul Ali is not liable for the death of Ashish as a Military official may shoot anyone who is a criminal.
Ans: (b)

Principle: Nothing is an offence if done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law.
Factual Situation: Nikhil, an author of macabre stories, was undergoing treatment for somnambulism. One night, he was given a high dose of sedative as he had become violent. There was a ‘Do not disturb’ board outside his room. Early morning, while Nikhil was still asleep, a nurse went to his room to check his condition. She started to note his pulse and thereafter to measure his BP. While she was fixing the equipment to measure the BP, Nikhil, saw the nurse, but in a delirium he thought the nurse to be a vampire going to drink his blood. Suddenly in order to exorcise the ghost, Nikhil grabbed the BP apparatus and hit the ‘ghost’ on the head several times. The nurse collapsed and died subsequently.
(a) Nikhil is not liable for the murder of the nurse as her action disturbed Nikhil’s sleep.
(b) Nikhil is liable for the murder of the nurse as no one is expected to practice exorcism in the modern times.
(c) Nikhil is liable for causing grievous hurt of the nurse as she did not die immediately.
(d) Nikhil is not liable for the murder of the nurse as he did not know what he was doing.
Ans: (d)

Related: Direction sense test

Principle: When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Factual Situation: Hitesh, Ravinder, Sandeep and Abhishek who were unemployed, decided to loot the house of a rich businessman one night. When all of them were about to jump the compound wall, Abhishek decided to remain at the gate and warn them, in case of any problem. Hitesh, Ravinder and Sandeep entered the house and took cash and gold ornaments. While coming out of the house Ravinder tripped on a rubber hose pipe creating a sound. By this the watchman who had otherwise asleep woke up. Ravinder suddenly took the rubber hose and strangled the watchman’s neck thus killing him. Later all Hitesh, Ravinder, Sandeep and Abhishek were arrested and prosecuted.
(a) Hitesh, Ravinder, Sandeep and Abhishek are all liable for the robbery. Ravinder in addition, is liable for the murder of the Watchman as murdering any one was not in their plan.
(b) Hitesh, Ravinder and Sandeep are all liable for the robbery. Ravinder in addition, is liable for the murder of the Watchman. Abhishek is innocent of both the crimes as he was only guarding at the gate and did not participate in the crimes.
(c) Hitesh, Ravinder, Sandeep and Abhishek are all liable for the robbery and murder of the Watchman as it was done in order to carry out their common plan.
(d) Hitesh, Ravinder and Sandeep are liable for the robbery and murder of the Watchman as it was in ful-fillment of their common plan. Abhishek is innocent as he did not participate in any of the crimes.
Ans: (c)

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
Factual Situation: Ram, Shyam and Vipin were friends. Vipin was in love with Anita and wanted to marry her. One day she told him that her marriage was fixed with a rich NRI and that he should not disturb her again in future.
Vipin, who became depressed, told this to his friends. Ram suggested that hey should go to a nearby Bar and drink some Beer so that Vipin could relax. As Vipin was not habituated to drinks, initially he declined but later at the bar Ram told Vipin to take a little Whisky, which he did hesitatingly.
After a while Vipin became totally intoxicated and started to say that Anita ditched him. Shyam, who was also drunk then said, “If you are so worried, go and kill her”. A little while later all three friends parted company. Vipin went straight to Anita’s hostel, called her out and shot her.
(a) Vipin is not liable for murdering Anita as he did not realize the seriousness of the act as he was drunk.
(b) Vipin is not liable for the murder as he was forced to drink Whisky when the initial suggestion was to take Beer.
(c) Vipin and his friends are jointly liable for murdering Anita as the suggestion to ‘kill her’ developed in the group.
(d) Vipin is liable for murdering Anita as he was under the influence of a drink, which he took voluntarily.
Ans: (d)

Principle: Whoever attempts to commit an offence and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence shall be punished.
Factual Situation: Shubham, makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box belonging to the Sarthak and finds after opening the box, that there is no jewel in it. Shubham is prosecuted for the offence of attempting to commit theft.
(a) Shubham is liable for the offence of attempt to commit theft.
(b) Shubham is not liable for attempting to commit theft as there was no jewel in the box which could have been stolen by Shubham.
(c) Shubham is not liable as Sarthak did not lose anything.
(d) Shubham is liable as he has done an act which is morally wrong.
Ans: (a)

Consent to do an act is not taken as real consent if the same is given under fear of injury or under a misconception of fact and the person doing the act knows that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception.
Factual Situation: Piyush, a male music teacher told Reena, one of his girl students that there is an operation for improving the voice and that if she agreed; he would perform it on her. She agreed. On the basis of her consent Piyush raped Reena.
Later the matter was reported to the police by Reena.
(a) Reena will not succeed as Piyush raped her with her consent.
(b) Piyush is not responsible as Reena thought that the act was for improving her voice.
(c) Piyush is not guilty as Reena should have known that the consent given to P might injure her.
(d) Piyush will be liable for the offence of rape as Reena agreed to Piyush’s deeds as she thought that it was to improve her voice.
Ans: (d)

Whoever tenders to any other person counterfeit coins or currency which he knows to be counterfeit, commits an offence.
Factual Situation: Tapan Das was an employee in a private company. One day while depositing some money at the bank, handed over to him by the company’s cashier, the bank’s casher identified a 100 rupee note as counterfeit and returned it to Tapan Das. Then Tapan Das went to a hotel, ordered lunch and handed over the counterfeit 100 rupee note at the hotel so as to get rid of it. The hotel manager identified the note as counterfeit and informed the police.
(a) Tapan Das is not liable as he did not do anything to procure the counterfeit note.
(b) Tapan Das is not liable as he was only trying to get rid of a fake currency note.
(c) Tapan Das is not liable as there was no criminal intention to cheat any one.
(d) Tapan Das is guilty as he tried to pass on a counterfeit note knowing it to be fake.
Ans: (d)

Nothing is an offence committed by a child above the age of 7 years and below the age of 12 years, provided that the child is not mature enough to understand the nature and consequence of his conduct.
Factual Situation: Kunal, a boy of 11 years of age found a gold ornament at the vicinity of a temple. The ornament was accidentally dropped by the Pundit while putting it on the idol. Kunal took it and gave it to Priya, his 7 year old sister to keep it and instructed her not to tell anyone about it. On a complaint by the Temple authorities the gold ornament was recovered from the school bag of Priya.
(a) Kunal and Priya are guilty of theft.
(b) Kunal is guilty of theft any Priya is innocent.
(c) Kunal and Priya are both innocent.
(d) Kunal is innocent and Priya is guilty of theft.
Ans: (a)

Principle: Whoever intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, commits theft.
Factual Situation: Balu and Ramu are close friends. One day Ramu went to Balu’s house and saw a mobile belonging to Balu’s sister, who came for a holiday. Ramu took the phone and put his SIM card in it and started using it.
(a) Ramu is guilty of theft.
(b) Ramu is not guilty of theft as he was free to take anything from Balu’s custody.
(c) Ramu is guilty of the offence of criminal misappropriation.
(d) Ramu is not guilty of any offence as he and Balu are good friends.
Ans: (a)

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. However, a person is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death.
Factual Situation: Saurab, had a serious argument with his wife. The woman uttered some filthy words at Saurab, which further irritated him. He moved towards the woman with a wooden piece to beat her. Suddenly, their daughter who was sleeping in the room woke up and ran towards her mother.
Saurab’s blow fell on the child’s head and she fell down unconscious. The couple believed that their daughter died due to the blow. Saurab immediately took out a rope and hung her by the neck on to the ceiling fan to give the impression that the girl committed suicide as she failed in the Class X exam. When the rope got tightened the child cried, but died immediately due to asphyxiation.
(a) Saurab is guilty of murder of his daughter as he hung her by the neck which resulted in her death.
(b) Saurab and his wife are both guilty of the murder of their daughter.
(c) Saurab is guilty of culpable homicide as he thought that his daughter had already died and he believed that he was was only hanging a dead body.
(d) Saurab is guilty of grievous hurt as the lathi blow was the basic reason of the child’s death.
Ans: (c)

Manish person who is under a legal obligation to save the life of a human being will be liable for an omission to do so.
Factual Situation: Manish man who knew swimming was watching a child drowning. He said to himself: “It is not my child, why do I bother?”
(a) Manish will be responsible for the death of the child as he knew swimming and hence was obliged to save the child.
(b) Manish will not be liable as he was not duty bound to save the child.
(c) Manish will be liable as he knew that the child would drown if he did not save it still did not save the child.
(d) Manish will not be responsible as others could have helped the child.
Ans: (b)

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse in the country.
Factual Situation: Z, a foreign national came to New Delhi as a transit passenger at the Indira Gandhi International Air Port. His flight landed in the morning on June 9, 2008 at 10:15 am and he was supposed to catch the next flight at 1:00 pm the same day to another country. He was carrying 1 Kilogram of Hashish. The Government of India notified on June 9, 2008 that “any person having more than 500 Millie Grams of any Narcotic and Psychotropic substances, including Hashish in his possession would be punishable …” The notification was published in the Official Gazette that was published on the morning of June 9, 2008. The Customs authorities arrested Z.
(a) Z is not liable as he was only a transit passenger who had no opportunity to mingle with any Indian.
(b) Z is liable as mere possession of a narcotic substance beyond a certain limit is an offence in the country.
(c) Z is not liable as he was not bound by a new regulation which was notified when he was on the flight.
(d) Can be arrested only when the Customs Officials get a clearance from the Embassy of his own country.
Ans: (b)

Principle: Euthanasia or mercy killing is not accepted as a defence in Indian law.
Factual Situation: X was suffering from HIV AIDS and was in a pathetic condition. The Doctors treating him told him that there was no hope. X decided to end his life and requested Z, his Doctor to kill him by injecting some poison into his body. Dr. Z agreed to his request and made preparations for executing the request of X. A nurse who happened to work in the same hospital was also a member of an NGO in the field of Human Rights. The nurse informed the matter to the NGO, which in turn informed the police.
The Police arrested Dr. Z while he was near X to give an injection to end the life of X.
(a) Dr. Z is not guilty of any offence as he was only trying to help a human being from suffering, and hence it does not amount to a violation of X’s human rights.
(b) X himself took a decision to end his life, for which he sought the professional help of Dr. Z. Hence, the Doctor is not guilty of any offence.
(c) Dr. Z is liable as he told the patient that there was no hope.
(d) Dr. Z is liable for attempting to kill X.
Ans: (d)

Related: Drug quiz questions and answers

The Indian Penal Code makes preparation to wage war against the Government punishable.
Factual Situation: X, the chairman of a political party during an election campaign alleged that the ruling party was responsible for inflation, increase in crimes and all other evils that prevailed in the country and hence, exalted his party members to overthrow the present government.
(a) X is guilty as he was provoking his party men to overthrow the Government.
(b) X is not liable as his act does not amount to preparation for waging war against the Government.
(c) X is not liable as what he was saying was true.
(d) X is liable as he was making an irresponsible statement.
Ans: (b)

Principle: Breach of trust which implies ‘entrustment’ is punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
Factual Situation: Y was working as a cashier in a private bank urgently required some money for the weekend. On Saturday evening he took one lakh from the total collection and decided to replace on Monday morning. He did not for a moment intent to steal the money.
(a) Y has not committed any offence as he did not intent to steal the money.
(b) Y is not liable because he intended to replace the money on Monday
(c) Y is liable for committing breach of trust.
(d) Y is liable as it was a huge amount.
Ans: (c)

About the author


MBA from one of the best universities, Vishal is our marketing guy with experience of 10+ years. He always inspires and empowers to explore more about in-depth topics in marketing, sales and entrepreneurship.


error: Content is protected !!