Chapter 5 LEGAL REASONING "The law of things is a law of universal reason, but most men live as if they had

a wisdom of their own" Once you begin to study LL.B and become a lawyer, 90% of the time you will be applying the law to factueal situations. Your skill in doing so, will detemine how good a lawyeryou will be. Therefore, it is only to be expected that the LL.B. Entrance Test should examine you for this ability. From the first few questions of the Model Test Paper, you must have realised that all it takes to arrive at the correct answer is a thought process. Legal education is primarily concerned with the development of this faculty of legal reasoning. To be more specific on this faculty of legal reasoning. To be more specific on this subject, analytical thinking invitably leads you to the most appsropriate choice among many ambiguity and biased generalisations. A typical legal reasoning questions appear as follows :EXAMPLE 1 LEGAL 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, is said to commit theft. Whoever commits theft, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with both. FACTUAL SITUATION : Viru sees a ring belonging to Surya's house. Not venturing to misappropriate the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, Viru hides the ring under the sofa cover, where it is highly improbable that Viryu has the intention of taking the ring from the hiding place and selling it when the loss is forgotten. DECISION: Is Viru guilty of thefe ? (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) Yes, because Viru had the intention of removing the ring from Surya's possession. (d) Yes, because Viru had the intention of taking movable property from Surya's possession, and with this intention he moved the property. Heraclitus The answer to the above question is (d). Here is a method which will always lead you to the correct choice. FIRST read the 'Legal Principal' and break it into its component parts. In doing so, remeber every word of the legal principle is important and so is the order of words in which it is stated. The legal principal therefore, is: 1. Whoever

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. with both.

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 is said to commits theft. whoever commits theft. shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with this principle which firmly perceived, analyse the factual

situation: 1. Viru sees a ring belonging to Surya lying on a table in Surya's house. 2. not venturing to misappropriate the ring immediately for fear of search and detection. 3. Viru hides the ring under the sofa cover, where it is highly improbable that it will ever be found by Surya. 4. Viru has the intention of taking the ring from the hinding place and seling it when the loss is forgotten. Now, let us re-analyse: 1. Whover = Viru. 2. intending to take dishonestly = Viru's intention is dishonest because he ultimately wants to take the ring and sell it. 3. any movable property = ring is movable property. 4. out of the possession of any person = Viru's intention is to take the ring out of Surya's possession. 5. without that person's otherwise there is no need for Viru to make so much effort. 6. moves that property = Viru moved the ring from the table to the underside of the sofa cover. 7. in order to such taking = the whole object of moving the ring was to take ring, even though at some later time. 8. is said to commit theft = Viru committed theft because he moved the ring with the dishonest intention of taking it out of Surya's possession without Surya's consent. 9. Whoever commits theft = Viru 10. shall be punished. 11. with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. The great benefit of this method of analysis is that you not only arrive at the correct answer, you arrive so for the right reasons. This is important because the choices invariably test your reasoning power. With the benefit of the aforementioned analysis, it should be obvious o you that:

Viru can nerver be liable for the theft of Surya's land or house because both both are immovable properties and Viru cannot move them. If Viru were to hide the same ring at the same place by way of a practical joke, he would still not eb liable for theft because he has no dishonest intention to take property out of the possession of Surya without Surya's consent. If Viru was to borrow the ring from Surya and later refuse to return it, he would still not be liable for theft because he took the ring out of Surya's possession with his consent. Later, when he developed a dishounest intention, the ring out of Surya's possession with his consent. Later, when he developed a dishonest intention, the ring was not in Surya's possession, no question can arise of his moving the ring with the intention to take it out of Surya's possession. (Don't get alarmed, there are other provisions in Criminal Law which will take care of Viru. The point being made is that not every situation can be called 'theft' in law. Don't let your outrage determine your choice!) It should be clear that Viru is also liable for theft in the following situation: Viru is sa beggar, who has not had anything to eat for the past three days. He sees a har of peckle lying in the verandah of Surya's house. He opens the gate, walks upto the verandah, picks up the jar and eats the pickle. Then he walks out of the gate but is caught. Viru moved movable property (pickle) out of the possession of Surya (by eating it and thereby putting it into his own stomach) without Surya's consent and he did so dishonestly (in law the word 'dishonestly' means causing wrongful loss, and 'wrongful loss' means loss by unlawful means of property to wich the person losing is legally entitled !). In the early stages it is advisable to do the above analysis in writing, but by the time you have solved more than 180 questions that occur at various places in this book, the process will become naturally mental, speedier and accurate. That is the stage, after whic, you can confidently keep yourself update with the Entrance-Test. AREAS OF TESTING IN LEGAL REASONING Questions in the Legal Reasoning Section are asked mainly from the following areas:(a) Criminal Law (b) Law of Contract (c) Law of Trot (d) constitutional Law In aforementioned example you can easily understand that this is a question from Criminal Law. The Legal Principle defines 'theft' under Section 378 and prescribes for its punishment under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The 'theft' in dwelling house is also defined under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code. Further, the questions in the Legal Reasoning Section are of both objective and subjective types. Some questions are objective type and only, where you have to mark the most correct option out of three-four options given. Entrance tests of most of the law schools ask only objective type questions in

legal reasoning. Some questions are purely subjective in nature asking for the correct answer of the problem and the reasons supporting your answer. Entrance Test of NLSIU, Bangalore sometimes, requires you to mark the correct answer out of three-four options given and then provide explanation to your answer in two to four lines. Overwiting is generally penalise with a ngative and subjective type, both. Hence, the student is expected to solve the given questions and practise to write explanations or