Principle: A lawful act does not become wrongful because of bad motive, or malice.Facts: Ashok made certain constructions to his commercial complex without complying with the provisions of the State Municipal Act. The local municipal authorities demolished the new construction. Ashok filed a suit against the local municipality contending that the demolition was illegal as some of the officers of the local municipality were acting maliciously in getting the extra construction demolished.a)Demolition of an illegal construction is lawful, whether the demolition was done maliciously or not.b)Demolition of an illegal construction, when done with a malicious intent, is not lawful.c)Whether the demolition was lawful or unlawful depends on the motives of the officers who authorized the demolition.d)Demolition of any construction, authorized by the municipality, is lawful, malicious intention notwithstanding.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Principle: A lawful act does not become wron...

Principle: A lawful act does not become wrongful because of bad motive, or malice.

Facts: Ashok made certain constructions to his commercial complex without complying with the provisions of the State Municipal Act. The local municipal authorities demolished the new construction. Ashok filed a suit against the local municipality contending that the demolition was illegal as some of the officers of the local municipality were acting maliciously in getting the extra construction demolished.

a)
Demolition of an illegal construction is lawful, whether the demolition was done maliciously or not.
b)
Demolition of an illegal construction, when done with a malicious intent, is not lawful.
c)
Whether the demolition was lawful or unlawful depends on the motives of the officers who authorized the demolition.
d)
Demolition of any construction, authorized by the municipality, is lawful, malicious intention notwithstanding.

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Principle: A lawful act does not become wrongful because of bad motiv...

The demolition was done lawfully. The malicious intent used, or not, is not of any consideration here.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Principle:A lawful act does not become wrongful because of bad motive, or malice.Facts:Ashok made certain constructions to his commercial complex without complying with the provisions of the State Municipal Act. The local municipal authorities demolished the new construction. Ashok filed a suit against the local municipality contending that the demolition was illegal as some of the officers of the local municipality were acting maliciously in getting the extra construction demolished.

View answer

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.Trespass can be defined as an unjustifiable physical interference of land in possession of one party by another. Under English common law where these principles of torts emanate, trespass does not form a criminal act but in the Indian Penal Code it has been given recognition i.e. under section 441 But it defines trespass as unjustifiable physical interference with the possession of property of the claimant with requisite intention of doing so. The Intention part is present due to it being under a criminal code where in 'mens rea' is a part.Under English Common Law the maxim that is used for trespass is 'trespass quare clausam fregit' which means "because he (the defendant) broke or entered into the close". The tort of trespass requires essentially only the possession of land by the plaintiff and encroachment by some way by the defendant. There requires no force, unlawful intention or damage nor the breaking of an enclosure. One of the most important ingredients of a tort of trespass is the fact that the land in question which has been encroached upon essentially needs to be in the direct possession of the plaintiff and not just mere physical presence on it. Another essential provision of the tort of trespass includes in the directness of the act. If the act is direct i.e. arising out of the natural consequences of the act of the defendant then it is valid. But trespass is encroachment upon property whereas nuisance is interference upon another's right to enjoy his property.Also if a person enters upon another's land and stays on it, the act is connoted as continuing trespass. Furthermore, the owner of a land is entitled to the airspace above him but he is aerial trespass has a very important ingredient which is that the object that enters his land aerially should be at such height that it violates his right to enjoy his property and moreover violate his right of ordinary use of his land.The subject matter for an action is a notable point. Merely walking on a land possessed by the plaintiff forms a tort as it involves encroaching upon the legal right to own property. The general principle of subject matter was prescribed in the many cases. It was held that anything associated with the soil and which is capable of being possessed individually forms the subject matter in the tort. Therefore if there is any damage incurred upon any object which is associated with the land of the plaintiff an action in trespass may be instituted.Q. The Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation is constructing a road and to support such infrastructure had erected buttresses on the land of Timir Sharma and had not removed them. Timir filed a suit against the authorities in the court after 6 months of the completion of the construction work.

View answer

Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principles: Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance. Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligence and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer accordingly.The Aravali hills have shaped the climate of the upper Indo-Gangetic plains for many hundreds of years. So, it's no surprise that their rapid man-made degradation in recent decades is proving very consequential, pushing the spread of the Indian desert towards eastern Rajasthan, Haryana and west Uttar Pradesh. Yet, despite numerous warning signs, governments have simply not stepped up to protect the Aravalis as they should. In 2018 the Supreme Court was informed that one-fourth of these hills in Rajasthan were gone forever. This newspaper has reported how after that too, the wrecking ball of construction has continued erasing hillocks in Haryana.The Supreme Court took cognizance of yesterday's report to direct immediate stay on construction, asking the Haryana government to explain allowing such construction in violation of its orders. It appears court orders keep getting undermined just like government regulations - this may be the real contempt of court, rather than somebody's tweet - even as from the Himalayas to Western Ghats the local administration mindset is that if they aren't being used for mining or roads or to house people, the mountains are being wasted. In cases like Haryana the state itself can be seen resisting the notification of natural conservation zones, so much so that an exasperated Punjab and Haryana High Court said earlier this year, "If your intention is that you are not going to protect it.... then say so." It's against the backdrop of such challenges that the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EI

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer accordingly.The Aravali hills have shaped the climate of the upper Indo-Gangetic plains for many hundreds of years. So, it's no surprise that their rapid man-made degradation in recent decades is proving very consequential, pushing the spread of the Indian desert towards eastern Rajasthan, Haryana and west Uttar Pradesh. Yet, despite numerous warning signs, governments have simply not stepped up to protect the Aravalis as they should. In 2018 the Supreme Court was informed that one-fourth of these hills in Rajasthan were gone forever. This newspaper has reported how after that too, the wrecking ball of construction has continued erasing hillocks in Haryana.The Supreme Court took cognizance of yesterday's report to direct immediate stay on construction, asking the Haryana government to explain allowing such construction in violation of its orders. It appears court orders keep getting undermined just like government regulations - this may be the real contempt of court, rather than somebody's tweet - even as from the Himalayas to Western Ghats the local administration mindset is that if they aren't being used for mining or roads or to house people, the mountains are being wasted. In cases like Haryana the state itself can be seen resisting the notification of natural conservation zones, so much so that an exasperated Punjab and Haryana High Court said earlier this year, "If your intention is that you are not going to protect it.... then say so." It's against the backdrop of such challenges that the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EI

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Principle: A lawful act does not become wrongful because of bad motive, or malice.Facts: Ashok made certain constructions to his commercial complex without complying with the provisions of the State Municipal Act. The local municipal authorities demolished the new construction. Ashok filed a suit against the local municipality contending that the demolition was illegal as some of the officers of the local municipality were acting maliciously in getting the extra construction demolished.a)Demolition of an illegal construction is lawful, whether the demolition was done maliciously or not.b)Demolition of an illegal construction, when done with a malicious intent, is not lawful.c)Whether the demolition was lawful or unlawful depends on the motives of the officers who authorized the demolition.d)Demolition of any construction, authorized by the municipality, is lawful, malicious intention notwithstanding.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Principle: A lawful act does not become wrongful because of bad motive, or malice.Facts: Ashok made certain constructions to his commercial complex without complying with the provisions of the State Municipal Act. The local municipal authorities demolished the new construction. Ashok filed a suit against the local municipality contending that the demolition was illegal as some of the officers of the local municipality were acting maliciously in getting the extra construction demolished.a)Demolition of an illegal construction is lawful, whether the demolition was done maliciously or not.b)Demolition of an illegal construction, when done with a malicious intent, is not lawful.c)Whether the demolition was lawful or unlawful depends on the motives of the officers who authorized the demolition.d)Demolition of any construction, authorized by the municipality, is lawful, malicious intention notwithstanding.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Principle: A lawful act does not become wrongful because of bad motive, or malice.Facts: Ashok made certain constructions to his commercial complex without complying with the provisions of the State Municipal Act. The local municipal authorities demolished the new construction. Ashok filed a suit against the local municipality contending that the demolition was illegal as some of the officers of the local municipality were acting maliciously in getting the extra construction demolished.a)Demolition of an illegal construction is lawful, whether the demolition was done maliciously or not.b)Demolition of an illegal construction, when done with a malicious intent, is not lawful.c)Whether the demolition was lawful or unlawful depends on the motives of the officers who authorized the demolition.d)Demolition of any construction, authorized by the municipality, is lawful, malicious intention notwithstanding.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principle: A lawful act does not become wrongful because of bad motive, or malice.Facts: Ashok made certain constructions to his commercial complex without complying with the provisions of the State Municipal Act. The local municipal authorities demolished the new construction. Ashok filed a suit against the local municipality contending that the demolition was illegal as some of the officers of the local municipality were acting maliciously in getting the extra construction demolished.a)Demolition of an illegal construction is lawful, whether the demolition was done maliciously or not.b)Demolition of an illegal construction, when done with a malicious intent, is not lawful.c)Whether the demolition was lawful or unlawful depends on the motives of the officers who authorized the demolition.d)Demolition of any construction, authorized by the municipality, is lawful, malicious intention notwithstanding.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principle: A lawful act does not become wrongful because of bad motive, or malice.Facts: Ashok made certain constructions to his commercial complex without complying with the provisions of the State Municipal Act. The local municipal authorities demolished the new construction. Ashok filed a suit against the local municipality contending that the demolition was illegal as some of the officers of the local municipality were acting maliciously in getting the extra construction demolished.a)Demolition of an illegal construction is lawful, whether the demolition was done maliciously or not.b)Demolition of an illegal construction, when done with a malicious intent, is not lawful.c)Whether the demolition was lawful or unlawful depends on the motives of the officers who authorized the demolition.d)Demolition of any construction, authorized by the municipality, is lawful, malicious intention notwithstanding.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Principle: A lawful act does not become wrongful because of bad motive, or malice.Facts: Ashok made certain constructions to his commercial complex without complying with the provisions of the State Municipal Act. The local municipal authorities demolished the new construction. Ashok filed a suit against the local municipality contending that the demolition was illegal as some of the officers of the local municipality were acting maliciously in getting the extra construction demolished.a)Demolition of an illegal construction is lawful, whether the demolition was done maliciously or not.b)Demolition of an illegal construction, when done with a malicious intent, is not lawful.c)Whether the demolition was lawful or unlawful depends on the motives of the officers who authorized the demolition.d)Demolition of any construction, authorized by the municipality, is lawful, malicious intention notwithstanding.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle: A lawful act does not become wrongful because of bad motive, or malice.Facts: Ashok made certain constructions to his commercial complex without complying with the provisions of the State Municipal Act. The local municipal authorities demolished the new construction. Ashok filed a suit against the local municipality contending that the demolition was illegal as some of the officers of the local municipality were acting maliciously in getting the extra construction demolished.a)Demolition of an illegal construction is lawful, whether the demolition was done maliciously or not.b)Demolition of an illegal construction, when done with a malicious intent, is not lawful.c)Whether the demolition was lawful or unlawful depends on the motives of the officers who authorized the demolition.d)Demolition of any construction, authorized by the municipality, is lawful, malicious intention notwithstanding.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle: A lawful act does not become wrongful because of bad motive, or malice.Facts: Ashok made certain constructions to his commercial complex without complying with the provisions of the State Municipal Act. The local municipal authorities demolished the new construction. Ashok filed a suit against the local municipality contending that the demolition was illegal as some of the officers of the local municipality were acting maliciously in getting the extra construction demolished.a)Demolition of an illegal construction is lawful, whether the demolition was done maliciously or not.b)Demolition of an illegal construction, when done with a malicious intent, is not lawful.c)Whether the demolition was lawful or unlawful depends on the motives of the officers who authorized the demolition.d)Demolition of any construction, authorized by the municipality, is lawful, malicious intention notwithstanding.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle: A lawful act does not become wrongful because of bad motive, or malice.Facts: Ashok made certain constructions to his commercial complex without complying with the provisions of the State Municipal Act. The local municipal authorities demolished the new construction. Ashok filed a suit against the local municipality contending that the demolition was illegal as some of the officers of the local municipality were acting maliciously in getting the extra construction demolished.a)Demolition of an illegal construction is lawful, whether the demolition was done maliciously or not.b)Demolition of an illegal construction, when done with a malicious intent, is not lawful.c)Whether the demolition was lawful or unlawful depends on the motives of the officers who authorized the demolition.d)Demolition of any construction, authorized by the municipality, is lawful, malicious intention notwithstanding.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle: A lawful act does not become wrongful because of bad motive, or malice.Facts: Ashok made certain constructions to his commercial complex without complying with the provisions of the State Municipal Act. The local municipal authorities demolished the new construction. Ashok filed a suit against the local municipality contending that the demolition was illegal as some of the officers of the local municipality were acting maliciously in getting the extra construction demolished.a)Demolition of an illegal construction is lawful, whether the demolition was done maliciously or not.b)Demolition of an illegal construction, when done with a malicious intent, is not lawful.c)Whether the demolition was lawful or unlawful depends on the motives of the officers who authorized the demolition.d)Demolition of any construction, authorized by the municipality, is lawful, malicious intention notwithstanding.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam