Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide:a)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No, The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Direction: The question consists of legal pr...

Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.

Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.

Decide:

a)
Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.
b)
Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.
c)
No, The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.
d)
None of the above

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (h...

The agreement between the party clearly confers jurisdiction to the courts of Delhi. The principle only declares void those agreements which bar the jurisdiction of any court. This agreement only identified the jurisdiction of Delhi courts by mutual consent and was not an agreement to preclude the jurisdiction of any other court.

Hence, the correct option is (C).

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.Principle:I. Recovery of specific immovable property - A person entitled to the possession of specific immovable property may recover it in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.II. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property - If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.Facts: Tyra Banks leased a bungalow in Beverly Hills for a period of 10 years. She lived there for a couple of months before leaving for NYC to shoot a movie. She returned after a year. The owner of the bungalow, who holds the title, wouldn’t let Banks in, claiming that she forfeited her right to enter the bungalow. Of the above-mentioned ones,Q. Which principle do you think she can sue her landlord under to gain the possession of the bungalow back (if at all)?

View answer

Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.Principle: A person who institutes a prosecution against another without any reasonable cause for the same, with a malicious intention, is guilty of the tort of malicious prosecution.Facts: Kishore and Arjun are arch-enemies. Once when Arjun's house is robbed, he lodges a criminal complaint reporting the same and in order to take revenge and cause harm to Kishore, says that Kishore is guilty of the same. The police arrest Kishore investigates the complaint and makes a report to the Magistrate stating that Kishore is not connected with the crime, which results in the Magistrate discharging Kishore. Kishore sues Arjun for the tort of malicious prosecution.

View answer

The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem-solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this section to test your knowledge of law.PRINCIPLE: Under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 a property must be transferred by one living person to another living person. The Act deals only with transfer of property between living persons.FACTS: 'X' wants to transfer his property to the presiding deity in a temple situated within the estate of 'A'.

View answer

The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as principl e) and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the most reasonable conclusion arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this section to test your knowledge of law.PRINCIPLE:Under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 a property must be transferred by one living person to another living person. The Act deals only with transfer of property between living persons.FACTS:X wants to transfer his property to the presiding deity in a temple situated within the estate of A.

View answer

The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem-solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this section to test your knowledge of law.PRINCIPLE: Where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorized to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists.FACTS: 'A', a Hindu who has separated from his father 'B', sells to 'C' three fields, X, Y and Z, representing that 'A' is authorized to transfer the same. Of these fields Z does not belong to 'A', it having been retained by 'B' on the partition; but on B's dying 'A' as successor obtains Z, and at that time 'C' had not cancelled the contract of sale.

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide:a)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No, The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide:a)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No, The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide:a)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No, The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide:a)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No, The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide:a)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No, The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide:a)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No, The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide:a)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No, The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide:a)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No, The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide:a)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No, The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.Principle: No agreement can bar the jurisdiction of a court.Facts: Rakesh and Sushil enter into an agreement whereby they agree that in case of any dispute, the same shall only be brought before the courts of Delhi. A few weeks later a dispute arose between the two and Sushil who resides in Bombay wants to file a suit in the courts of Bombay.Decide:a)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.b)Yes, as the agreement is void as it bars the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court.c)No, The agreement is not void as it does not bar the jurisdiction of any court rather it identifies the place of dispute resolution.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam