Q.

2) Short Notes – (any 2) 12 marks

1. Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea. [jan18]
Answer:
"Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" is a Latin legal maxim, which
translates to "An act does not make a person guilty unless there is a guilty
mind."
This principle highlights the importance of both actus reus (the physical act)
and mens rea (the mental state) in determining criminal liability. In other
words, for someone to be found guilty of a crime, they must have committed
the prohibited act with the requisite mental state (i.e., with intent,
knowledge, recklessness, or negligence depending on the crime).
This concept is foundational in criminal law, as it ensures that people are
only held criminally responsible when they have both engaged in a wrongful
act and had a culpable mindset when committing it.
R v. Faulkner (1981)
In R v. Faulkner, the defendant was involved in a situation where he
accidentally set fire to a ship while trying to steal rum from it. Faulkner was
charged with arson, but the court determined that the mental state required
for arson (intent to commit the act) was absent. He did not intend to cause
the fire, and his actions were not malicious.
The Court's Ruling: The court ruled that Faulkner lacked the necessary mens
rea for arson, even though he had committed the actus reus (setting the
fire). Since he had no intent to cause the fire, he was not guilty of arson.

2. Nemo Debt Esse Judex In Prupria Sua Cauca. [feb2019][2023]

Answer:
The Latin maxim "Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa" translates to
"No one should be a judge in their own cause." This principle reflects a
fundamental rule of natural justice, which emphasizes the importance of
impartiality in decision-making, particularly within the judicial process.
Explanation:
The maxim suggests that a person should not be allowed to act as a judge in
a case where they have a personal interest or stake in the outcome. The
idea is that it is unfair and unjust for someone to make decisions that affect
their own rights or interests because their judgment could be biased or
influenced by their personal situation.
Example in Case Law:
Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852)
In the case of Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852), the principle was
clearly illustrated. The case involved a situation where a judge had a
financial interest in one of the parties involved in the case. The judge, Lord
Chancellor, had shares in the Grand Junction Canal Company, which stood to
benefit from the ruling. The court ruled that the judgment was invalid
because of the judge's conflict of interest. This decision upheld the principle
that a judge cannot preside over a case in which they have a personal
interest, as it would compromise their impartiality and fairness.
Modern Application:
In modern legal systems, this maxim is a cornerstone of judicial ethics and
procedural fairness. Courts often apply the principle in various ways to
ensure that decisions are made impartially. If a judge has a personal,
financial, or familial connection to a case, they are generally required to
recuse themselves to maintain the integrity of the legal process.
Conclusion:
"Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa" underscores the essential
requirement for impartiality in legal proceedings. It ensures that justice is
not only done but also seen to be done, reinforcing the public's trust in the
fairness of the judicial system. This principle continues to serve as a
safeguard against bias or the appearance of bias in judicial decisions.

3. Ubhi jus Ibi Remedium [feb2019]

Answer:
In the words of Lord Justice Holt, "to imagine a right without a remedy is
very difficult". Ubi jus ibi remedium is the foundational principle for every
remedy provided under the law of Torts. It exuberates the common man to
have faith in the judicial system. The inherent principle behind ubi jus Ibi
remedium implies that a person who has suffered any wrong, will be
provided with a remedy under the due process of law. The word "jus" means
legal authority to do something or to demand something. The word
"remedium" means that the person has the right of action in a court of law.
Ubi jus ibi remedium is a Latin maxim which means that where there is a
wrong, there is a remedy. The maxim is based on the premise that where a
man has a right, there must be means provided to him/her to ensure proper
exercise or enjoyment of such rights. It is useless to imagine and think of a
right without a remedy. However, such a right must be legally recognised by
the statues. For instance, there are several moral and political wrongs which
are neither actionable nor pose sufficient reason to take legal action. In such
a scenario, there shall be no valid basis for raising damages by the
aggrieved. Thus, to say that there is a legal remedy against every wrong
action may not be entirely true. The maxim owes its origin to the common
law case of Ashby vs. White, (1703), wherein the court opined that for every
right vested in the plaintiff, there must also exist means to protect it. Should
there be any injury or harm in exercising or enjoying the said right, there
must be a remedy to rectify the same. Thus, no wrong should be allowed to
go without any compensation if it can be redressed by a court of law.
Similarly, the court reiterated this maxim at a very nascent stage in the case
of Marbury vs. Madison (1803) as well, mandating the need to have a
remedy for every wrong done to a party.

4. Beneficial Construction [Apr 2023]

Answer:
The principle of beneficial construction in interpretation of statutes plays a
pivotal role in the interpretation of legislative texts. Every piece of legislation
is crafted to serve a specific purpose, often aimed at protecting the interests
of a particular class or group. This principle is applied when a statute aims to
benefit a specific class or group, ensuring that ambiguities are resolved in
favour of the beneficiaries.
Case laws
Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate
In this case, the court emphasised that statutes related to the prevention of
unfair labour practices should be interpreted from the labourers’ perspective,
as the legislation aims to benefit them. This principle extends to other social
welfare legislations, ensuring that the interpretation aligns with the interests
of the beneficiary class.
Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohammad Quasim
The Supreme Court held that the rights of maintenance for children below
two years old and the mother under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, are independent of each other. Subsequent legislation,
such as the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986,
could not affect these rights without a clear provision to that effect.

5. Salus populi est suprema lex [jan18] [Apr 2023]

Answer:
The Latin maxim “Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto” translates to “The welfare
of the people shall be the supreme law.” It underscores the fundamental
principle that the collective welfare and safety of society take precedence
over individual rights or interests when the two come into conflict. The
maxim often guides governments and courts in creating and enforcing laws
that serve the public good, especially in scenarios of public emergencies or
where societal interests outweigh private concerns.
Case laws
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986)
Facts: Industries in Delhi caused significant environmental degradation.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ordered the relocation of polluting industries
to safeguard public health.
Principle: Public welfare was prioritized over industrial interests, emphasizing
the State’s duty to protect citizens’ health.
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Facts: Preventive detention of the petitioner was challenged under Article
21.
Judgment: The Court upheld the detention as a valid restriction on individual
liberty in the interest of public order.
Principle: Public safety was deemed supreme in balancing individual rights
and societal needs.

6. Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare [Dec 2023]

Answer:
Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare,” a Latin phrase meaning “no one is bound
to accuse themselves,” embodies a core principle of criminal jurisprudence
that protects individuals from self-incrimination. This principle, deeply rooted
in the legal traditions of many democratic societies, underscores the right of
individuals to remain silent and the protection against being compelled to
provide evidence that could be used against themselves in criminal
proceedings.
The rule “Nemo Tenetur Seipsum Accusare” is key in today’s legal systems,
mainly in criminal law. It shows respect for individual rights in legal cases.
This rule helps protect people from being forced to say things that could get
them in trouble.
Judicial interpretations of Article 20(3) have been very important. Cases like
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra have helped clarify this right. The Supreme
Court of India has stressed the importance of this protection for ethical
justice.
Cases like Kanti Kumari v. State of Jharkhand have also set limits on what
can be considered compulsion. These interpretations help keep the
Constitution’s rights strong.

7. Amicus Curiae [Dec 2023]

Answer:
"Amicus curiae" is a Latin term meaning "friend of the court." It refers to
someone who is not a party to a case but who offers information, expertise,
or insights that may assist the court in making a decision. These individuals
or organizations can file briefs or provide arguments to help the court
understand a particular legal issue or the broader implications of a case.
Amicus curiae briefs are commonly submitted in cases involving complex
legal questions or matters of public interest, where the outcome could affect
many people or industries beyond the immediate parties involved. For
example, in landmark Supreme Court cases, interest groups, advocacy
organizations, or even government agencies may submit amicus briefs to
provide additional perspectives.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
This case, which dealt with the constitutionality of affirmative action in
university admissions, saw a significant number of amicus curiae briefs from
universities, corporations, and other groups that supported the use of race
as a factor in admissions to achieve diversity. The University of Michigan and
other academic institutions submitted briefs arguing that diversity in
education contributes to the educational experience and prepares students
for a diverse workforce.

8. Review
Answer:
Review in a legal context refers to the process by which a higher court
examines the decision of a lower court. This process ensures that the law
was correctly applied, procedures were followed, and the judgment was fair.
Reviews can take place in different forms:
Appeals: A party dissatisfied with a lower court’s decision can appeal to a
higher court. The appellate court will review the case for legal or procedural
errors but typically does not reexamine the facts unless there is new
evidence or a miscarriage of justice.
Judicial Review: This refers to the power of courts to examine the actions of
the executive and legislative branches to ensure they comply with the
Constitution or other laws. Judicial review is most commonly associated with
constitutional law.
The court may affirm, reverse, or remand a case based on the review.
Affirming means the court agrees with the lower court’s decision, reversing
means the court disagrees, and remanding means the case is sent back to
the lower court for further proceedings.
In summary, a review helps maintain fairness and correctness in the legal
system by providing a mechanism to challenge and scrutinize decisions.

9. Explain the meaning of -(1) Law (2) Justice [feb2019]

Answer:
1. Law
Law refers to the system of rules and principles that govern the conduct of
individuals and institutions within a society. It provides a framework for
resolving disputes, maintaining order, and protecting rights. Laws can be
written (statutes, regulations) or unwritten (common law), and they apply to
everyone within a jurisdiction (such as a country or state). The purpose of
law is to regulate behavior and establish standards to ensure fairness and
stability in society.
There are different types of laws, including:
Criminal Law: Governs offenses against the state or public, such as theft,
assault, or murder.
Civil Law: Deals with disputes between individuals or entities, like contract
disputes or personal injury claims.
Constitutional Law: Concerned with the fundamental principles and
framework of government.
Administrative Law: Governs the actions of government agencies and public
bodies.
2. Justice
Justice refers to the concept of fairness and moral rightness in the treatment
of individuals and the administration of laws. It is the principle that everyone
is entitled to equal protection under the law, and it seeks to ensure that
legal decisions and actions are fair, unbiased, and based on truth and
morality.
There are several key aspects of justice:
Distributive Justice: Concerned with the fair allocation of resources and
benefits in society.
Retributive Justice: Focuses on punishment for wrongdoing, ensuring that
those who break the law are held accountable.
Restorative Justice: Aims to repair the harm caused by criminal behavior,
often focusing on rehabilitation and reconciliation between offenders and
victims.
Justice is often seen as the ideal outcome of law, where laws are applied
fairly and impartially to protect the rights of individuals and maintain social
harmony.
In short, law is the set of rules that govern society, while justice is the ideal
of fairness and moral rightness that law aims to achieve. They are closely
connected, but justice is a broader concept that can be pursued through the
law.
10. State the difference between -
(1) Civil Wrong (2) Criminal Wrong. [feb2019]
Answer:
Nature of Offense:
In criminal wrongs, the offense is considered a public wrong against the
state or society.
In civil wrongs, the offense is viewed as a private wrong against an
individual or entity.
Burden of Proof:
In criminal wrongs, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, who must
prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In civil wrongs, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff, who must prove
the defendant's liability on a balance of probabilities.
Punishment:
Criminal wrongs can result in imprisonment, fines, or other punitive
measures.
Civil wrongs typically result in the payment of damages or compensation to
the injured party.
Initiation of Proceedings:
Criminal wrongs are prosecuted by the state or government through law
enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system.
Civil wrongs are pursued by the aggrieved party, who initiates legal action
against the alleged wrongdoer.
Purpose of Proceedings:
Criminal proceedings aim to punish the offender and protect society from
criminal behavior.
Civil proceedings seek to compensate the victim and resolve disputes
between parties

11. Write the difference between Reviews and Revision. [Dec 2023]
Answer:
  Meaning and Scope
Review: The term “review” denotes the act of reconsideration, looking again,
or re-examining a legal case. Specifically, it involves a judicial re-evaluation
conducted by the same court and the same judge that initially rendered the
judgment. This process is primarily aimed at rectifying errors or addressing
overlooked aspects of the case.
Revision: In contrast, “revision” entails a more overarching concept where
the High Court takes on the responsibility of revisiting and potentially
modifying judgments issued by subordinate courts. The scope of revision is
broader, extending beyond the confines of the same court or judge, with the
High Court acting as the revising authority.
 Objective
Review: The primary objective of a review is to correct any errors made in
an order that could impact the interests of a party involved. It is a
mechanism for the same court and judge to revisit their own decision,
ensuring fairness and accuracy in the legal process.
Revision: The overarching goal of revision is to address instances of
illegality, irregularity, or impropriety within the proceedings of subordinate
courts. The High Court, in its revisional capacity, aims to examine records
related to “any order” and correct any flaws or injustices observed.
 Provisions in CPC
Review: The legal foundation for the process of review is laid out in Section
114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This section explicitly defines the
parameters and circumstances under which a review can be initiated.
Revision: Section 115 of the CPC is the statutory source for the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court. It delineates the High Court’s authority to
revise judgments made by subordinate courts under specific circumstances.
 Initiation and Authority
Review: Typically, a review is initiated by a party directly involved in the
case, and the same court and judge handle the process. The authority for
review lies within the confines of the court that issued the original judgment.
Revision: Unlike review, revision can be initiated by the High Court itself
(suo motu) or by an aggrieved party. The High Court serves as the revising
authority, providing a higher judicial forum for the reevaluation of cases.
 Time Frame for Application
Review: There is no specified limitation period mentioned for filing a review
application in Section 114 of the CPC. However, it is generally expected that
the application is made within a reasonable time from the pronouncement of
the judgment.
Revision: Section 115 establishes a limitation period of 90 days for filing a
revision application from the date of the judgment or decree in question.
 Nature of Errors Addressed
Review: The grounds for review include the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence, apparent mistakes or errors on the face of the record,
and other sufficient reasons. Review primarily focuses on correcting errors
within the original court’s judgment.
Revision: The High Court exercises revisional jurisdiction mainly on matters
of jurisdiction. It intervenes when there are instances of illegality,
irregularity, or impropriety in the proceedings of subordinate courts.
 Court Involvement
Review: The review process is an internal affair of the same court that
rendered the judgment. The same judge who passed the original decree is
involved in the re-examination.
Revision: In the case of revision, the involvement of the High Court
introduces an external and superior judicial authority into the process. The
High Court, being the revising body, brings a fresh perspective to the case.

12. Caveat emptor

Answer:
What is a Caveat Emptor?
Caveat emptor is a neo-Latin word meaning "let the buyer be vigilant." This
is a contract law concept in many jurisdictions that positions the buyer's
duty to perform due diligence before making a transaction. The concept is
widely used in real estate transactions but refers to other products and
services as well. Although the caveat emptor principle can be applied to the
purchase of any good or service, nowadays, it is primarily applied to real
estate transactions. Most consumer goods transactions in different
jurisdictions are regulated by specifically designed acts, while the caveat
emptor principle is losing its significance.
In addition, the financial services industry is a major exception from the
caveat emptor principle. Regulators require sellers of financial products to
disclose as much information as possible to the buyers. Generally, the seller
of a financial product is required to provide relevant information about the
product in a standardized form.
If Mr A decides to buy a car from Ms B, then he is responsible for obtaining
the details required to make an informed purchase. He would ask her how
many miles she has on it, whether any big components need to be replaced,
if it's regularly serviced, and so on.

13. Respondeat superior

Answer:
Respondeat superior is a legal principle that holds employers liable for the
actions of their employees when those actions are taken within the scope of
employment. The term "respondeat superior" is a Latin phrase that means
"let the master answer".
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held liable
for the actions of an employee if the employee was acting within the scope
of their employment when the harm occurred. This means that the employee
must have been acting in furtherance of the employer's business or interests
at the time of the harmful conduct.
The doctrine applies to both intentional and unintentional acts of the
employee. For example, if an employee intentionally harms someone while
performing their job duties, the employer can be held liable under the
doctrine of respondeat superior. Similarly, if an employee is negligent and
causes harm to someone while performing their job duties, the employer can
also be held liable.

14. Explain the meaning of Conviction and Writs

Answer:
In law, a conviction refers to a formal finding of guilt or a judgment of guilt
against a person who has been accused of committing a crime. It is the legal
determination by a court that the accused is guilty of the offense charged.
In order to secure a conviction, the prosecution must present evidence to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The evidence may include witness testimony, physical evidence, documents,
expert opinions, and other relevant information.
The judge or jury then evaluates the evidence and reaches a verdict, either
finding the accused guilty or not guilty.
A conviction typically leads to legal consequences or penalties, which can
vary depending on the jurisdiction and the severity of the crime committed.
These penalties may include fines, probation, community service, mandatory
counseling or treatment programs, imprisonment, or other forms of
punishment.
It’s important to note that a conviction results from a legal process and is
subject to the rules and procedures of the particular jurisdiction.

15.What Is a Writ?
Answer:
The term writ refers to a formal, legal document that orders a person or
entity to perform or to cease performing a specific action or deed. Writs are
drafted by judges, courts, or other entities that have administrative or
judicial jurisdiction.
These documents are part of common law and are often issued after a
judgment is made, giving those involved in a suit the ability to carry out the
judgment.
Example of a Writ
A writ of execution is a court order that allows a piece of property to be
transferred from one party to another. The plaintiff or injured party must
commence legal action against the defendant in order to get this court
order. Once the writ is drafted, the property is seized by a court official or
member of law enforcement. The property is then transferred or sold, with
the proceeds going to the plaintiff in cash.

16. Complaint and Plaint

Answer:
A Complaint and a Plaint are both legal documents used in the initiation of a
civil lawsuit, but they have distinct roles depending on the jurisdiction and
the type of legal proceeding.
Complaint:
Definition: A Complaint is a formal written document filed by the plaintiff
(the person bringing the case) in a court of law to start a civil lawsuit. It
outlines the allegations, the legal claims, and the relief or damages the
plaintiff is seeking.
Purpose: The complaint serves to inform the defendant of the charges or
claims against them and to begin the legal process.
Content: A complaint typically includes:
The plaintiff’s and defendant’s names and addresses.
A statement of the jurisdiction of the court.
A brief statement of the facts supporting the claim.
The legal basis for the claims (e.g., breach of contract, negligence).
A prayer for relief or the specific remedy sought (e.g., monetary damages,
injunction).
Jurisdiction: It’s commonly used in jurisdictions like the United States.
Plaint:
Definition: A Plaint is similar to a complaint, but it is commonly used in
certain legal systems, particularly in common law jurisdictions like India. It
is the document filed by the plaintiff to initiate a civil suit, specifying the
facts of the case and the relief sought.
Purpose: The plaint serves as a formal document to start a legal action in
civil court.
Content: A plaint generally contains:
The plaintiff's name, description, and address.
A description of the defendant(s) and their address.
Facts supporting the cause of action.
The legal grounds of the suit.
The relief sought (specific action or remedy).
Jurisdiction: Primarily used in jurisdictions like India under the Civil
Procedure Code.
In summary, while both documents serve similar functions to initiate legal
actions, the terms "complaint" and "plaint" are often used interchangeably
but differ slightly based on the region and specific legal context.

17. State and explain any two kinds of rights.[jan18]

Answer:
The standard of permitted action within a certain sphere are called rights. In
other words, a right is any action of a person which law permits. Legal rights
is different from a moral or natural right in the sense that it is recognized &
protected by law, whereas the latter may/may not be recognized & protected
by law.
Political Rights: Political rights are supplemented by several types of civil
liberties. i.e right to express one’s views freely right to protest free and fair
trail etc. These rights make the government accountable and ensure an
opportunity to each and every individual to influence the decision of the
government:
i Political rights provide equality to all citizens.
ii Every citizen has the right to participate in political process. I
ii Political rights provide the right to vote and elect representatives.
Iv Every citizen’s enjoys the right to contest elections and right to form
political parties.
Social Rights:
i Every citizen is entitled to enjoy the right to work to earn one’s own
livelihood and the state provides opportunities to earn the resources.
ii A welfare state guarantees rights to its citizens to adopt the profession of
ones choice and no one can be compelled to do the work which is not as per
his choice.
Cultural Rights:
i The right to have primary education.
ii Culture has been recognised as being necessary for leading good life.
Iii The people have the right to enjoy one’s own language one’s way of living
literature style of painting construction religion etc.
Iv Rights to establish institutions for teaching one’s own language.

18.State and explain two kinds of Writs. [feb2019]

Answer:
Types of Writs in India
 Habeas Corpus
The Latin meaning of the word ‘Habeas Corpus’ is ‘To have the body of.’ This
writ is used to enforce the fundamental right of individual liberty against
unlawful detention. Through Habeas Corpus, Supreme Court/High Court
orders one person who has arrested another person to bring the body of the
latter before the court.
Facts about Habeas Corpus in India:
The Supreme Court or High Court can issue this writ against both private
and public authorities.
Habeas Corpus can not be issued in the following cases:
When detention is lawful
When the proceeding is for contempt of a legislature or a court
Detention is by a competent court
Detention is outside the jurisdiction of the court
 Mandamus
The literal meaning of this writ is ‘We command.’ This writ is used by the
court to order the public official who has failed to perform his duty or refused
to do his duty, to resume his work. Besides public officials, Mandamus can
be issued against any public body, a corporation, an inferior court, a
tribunal, or government for the same purpose.
Facts about Mandamus in India:
Unlike Habeas Corpus, Mandamus cannot be issued against a private
individual
Mandamus can not be issued in the following cases:
To enforce departmental instruction that does not possess statutory force
To order someone to work when the kind of work is discretionary and not
mandatory
To enforce a contractual obligation
Mandamus can’t be issued against the Indian President or State Governors
Against the Chief Justice of a High Court acting in a judicial capacity

19. Noscitur a sociis

Answer:
Noscitur a sociis is a legal principle that means we should understand the
meaning of a vague or unclear word in a contract or law by looking at the
other words around it.
In simple terms, when we read a law or contract, we should think about how
each word fits into the whole sentence and not just what it means by itself.
This helps us make sure we understand the true intention of the law or
contract.
This rule is like a helper rule for understanding the law. It comes from Latin
words: “noscitur” means knowing, “a” means with and “socii” means
association. So, noscitur a sociis means “knowing with association.” There’s
also a longer Latin saying: “noscitur ex socio qui non cogiiositur ex se,”
which means “he who cannot be known from himself may be known from his
associates.” This longer saying means that sometimes you can understand
someone better by looking at who they associate with.
Noscitur a sociis means “it is known by its associates” or “a word is known
by the company it keeps.” This is a Latin principle and is often used in
statutory interpretation and legal analysis to determine the meaning of a
particular word or phrase within a law or regulation by considering the words
and phrases that surround it in the same context.
In practical terms, when a word or term is unclear or ambiguous in a legal
document, such as a statute or contract, it is interpreted by looking at the
other words, phrases or terms that are associated with it in that specific
provision. By examining how the word is used within the context of the
surrounding language, one can better understand its intended meaning and
purpose.
Example: Professor Graham explained the noscitur a sociis rule with an
example involving an insured person who becomes bankrupt and is unable
to collect insurance proceeds in case of “illness, disability or death.”

20. Nemo est hares viventis. [Aug23]

Answer:
The maxim Nemo est haeres viventis remains a vital tenet in inheritance and
property law. By ensuring that inheritance rights only vest upon death, it
upholds the autonomy of property owners and provides a clear framework
for the distribution of assets.
Inheritance law dictates that only upon the death of an ancestor does an
individual become a full heir. The maxim Nemo Est Haeres Viventis
encapsulates this principle by stating that living children are merely potential
heirs and cannot claim the estate until the ancestor is deceased. This
concept is rooted in the idea that a person’s estate and will cannot be fully
determined or executed until their death. Therefore, until the death occurs,
the title of heir remains incomplete.
When a will is drafted, the testator (the person making the will) outlines
their intentions regarding the distribution of their property posthumously.
This will specifies who will inherit the estate, but the actual transfer of
ownership cannot occur until the testator has passed away. This ensures
that the property remains under the control of the testator during their
lifetime and prevents any premature claims by potential heirs.
Illustrations
Consider the example of A, who is the father of his only son, B. Under the
principle of “Nemo Est Haeres Viventis,” B is recognised as a potential legal
heir. However, B does not become a complete heir with rights to the estate
until A passes away. During A’s lifetime, B cannot claim ownership or any
legal rights to A’s property.
Case laws:
Krishna Kumar Birla vs. Rajendra Singh Lodha
This case involved the industrialist Birla, who executed several wills over his
lifetime. In his final will of 1999, he bequeathed his properties to Rajendra
Singh Lodha. The appellants, who were considered his legal heirs, contested
the will by filing a caveat.
The court referred to Section 2(h) of the law, along with the maxim Nemo
Est Haeres Viventis, to conclude that there can be no heir until the death of
the individual. Since Birla had executed a will, the properties were to be
distributed according to the will’s stipulations, making Lodha the rightful
heir.
Shamsudin vs. Abdul Hoosein
In this case, the issue revolved around the settlement of property by an heir
apparent before the death of the propositus (the person whose estate is in
question). The heir apparently had received money on the condition that
they would not claim a share of the estate later.

21. Ingnorantia facti excusat ignurantia lex non excusat. [Aug23]

Answer:
“Ignorantia Facti Excusat” means that ignorance of fact is an excuse. This
principle provides a defence for individuals who may have caused harm due
to a lack of knowledge or information. For example, if a person was driving a
car and accidentally hit a pedestrian who suddenly ran onto the road, the
driver may be able to use “Ignorantia Facti Excusat” as a defence if they can
prove that they did not see the pedestrian and could not have avoided the
accident.
Illustrate this, consider the example of A witnessing what appears to them to
be a murder committed by Z. A, in good faith and to the best of their
judgment, apprehends Z to bring them before the appropriate authorities. A
has not committed an offence, even if it turns out that Z was acting in self-
defence because A acted under a mistake of fact.
Relevant Laws and Case Laws
The case of Chiranji vs. State involved a widower named Chiranji who had
an abscess in his leg. While gathering “siadi” leaves with his 12-year-old son
on a hillock, Chiranji fell on a stone and sustained injuries, which resulted in
him becoming temporarily insane. Mistakenly thinking his son was a tiger,
he killed him. Chiranji was deemed incapable of knowing the nature of his
actions. The appellate court found him not guilty as he had no intention of
committing a wrong. At the time of the attack, he believed in good faith that
the object of the assault was not a human being, but a magical tiger.
Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat
“Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat” means that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
This principle places the responsibility on individuals to know and follow the
law, regardless of whether they were aware of the law or not. In other
words, a person cannot avoid liability by claiming that they did not know the
law.
For instance, a person caught travelling on a train without a ticket cannot
claim ignorance of the law as a defence and will be punished under Section
138 of The Indian Railways Act, 1989
For example, if Company A agrees to sell Company B a mixture containing
45% Sulphuric acid, but the law of the country only allows the sale of
mixtures containing up to 30% Sulphuric acid, the contract will be
considered void due to a mistake of law.
Relevant Laws and Case Law
In India, the legal system was greatly influenced by British rule and the
English common law was used to settle disputes. Thus, the maxim of
“Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat” was also considered to apply in Indian courts.
However, there have been some cases where the courts have recognized the
concept of mistake of law in certain circumstances.
In the case of Mohammad Ali v. Sri Ram Swarup, the court held that mistake
or ignorance of the law, even if in good faith, is not a valid defence.
However, it may still be considered as a mitigating factor in some cases.
Additionally, the arrest of a person without a warrant is not justified even if
the person was ignorant of the law.