Dr.

Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow

End Term Examination December, 2021
Max-Marks :- 70 Time - 05 Hours B.A. LL.B./Ist Sem./ET/Dec.-21/Socio-I

Sociology-I
Note: Read the instructions carefully before attempting the answers:
(i) The Question Paper is divided into 2 Sections i.e. Section - A and Section - B.
(ii) The Examinee is required to attempt any 3 (three) Questions from Section - A, and any 2 (two)
Questions from Section - B. Figures in the margin indicate the Marks.
(iii) The assignment has to be submitted in a handwritten form. No other format would be acceptable.
(iv) The examinee has to write the answer in A4 Size or equivalent size sheets, ruled or un-ruled.
(v) The examinee must write his/her name, enrollment number, name of the subject on the first page of
the answer.
(vi) The examinee has to mention his/her name and enrollment on every subsequent page.
(vii) The examinee must write down the page no. on every page in the format (No. of page of total pages)
example-1 of 12, 2 of 12 etc.
(viii) The examinee must ensure that the scanned copy of the answer script is clear and legible, in PDF
format and uploaded as a single file and size should not be more than 30 MB. In case the office
receives multiple files of the answer script, only first response received shall be considered and other
responses shall be ignored.
(ix) The name of the PDF file of the answer script must be (Enrollment No) (underscore) (Paper Name)
for Example 150101154_Jurisprudence.
(x) The Scanned copy of the same has to be uploaded on Office Form through the link-
https://forms.office.com/r/UW746xh37i or through QR Code given above till 04:00 PM on
20/12/2021. Examinee can use only their MS Teams User ID given by University and must be careful
while uploading the answer script as only first response would be accepted. Examinees must also take
care before uploading the PDF file of answer script that all the pages of the script have been added in
the PDF file.
(To reset your Ms Teams password kindly e-mail [email protected])
Only responses received through Office Form will be accepted. Answers received
through email will not be considered.
(xi) In case of any technical difficulty the examinee may contact Dr. Aman Deep Singh, Associate
Controller of Examinations on +91-9793085772, +91-8840353326.
(xii) The students must note that they are required to finish the writing of answers in three hours while
they have to answer one long question less. The time of two hours is more than sufficient for
downloading paper and uploading the answer-sheets. They must submit their answer sheets within 5
hours. Responses received after 04:00 PM shall be dealt in accordance with the notification no. 332-21
dated 10.03.2021(http://rmlnlu.ac.in/pdf/Notice_regarding_110321.pdf) available on the University
Website. If they fail to do so they would be afforded another opportunity to appear in the physical
examination in such papers after the reopening of the University but, in the interests of the students,
the chance will not be counted as a repeat paper. The University would ensure justice to all the
students.

(SECTION – A) (03X20)
1. How do we acquire a self? Comment with the help of the theories of Cooley and Mead.
2. What are the primary agents of socialization? How does gender socialization affect our sense of
self and personality?
3. What do you understand by culture? Differentiate between cultural relativism and ethnocentrism
with some examples.
4. What are the major theoretical perspectives to interpret social life? Comment on any of these
perspectives and support your answer with some examples.
5. What do you understand by social stratification? Why is social stratification universal?
6. When did sociology first appear as a separate discipline? Comment on any one of the forefather's
contributions to the field of knowledge.
 (SECTION – B) (02X05)
Write short notes on any two of the following:
7. Cultural diffusion.
8. Family of orientation.
9. Religion and magic.
10. Reference group.

**************
 Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
End Term Examination December, 2021
Max-Marks :- 70 Time - 05 Hours B.A. LL.B./Ist Sem./ET/Dec.-21/Pol.-I

Political Science-I
Note: Read the instructions carefully before attempting the answers:
(i) The Question Paper is divided into 2 Sections i.e. Section - A and Section - B.
(ii) The Examinee is required to attempt any 3 (three) Questions from Section - A, and any 2 (two)
Questions from Section - B. Figures in the margin indicate the Marks.
(iii) The assignment has to be submitted in a handwritten form. No other format would be acceptable.
(iv) The examinee has to write the answer in A4 Size or equivalent size sheets, ruled or un-ruled.
(v) The examinee must write his/her name, enrollment number, name of the subject on the first page of
the answer.
(vi) The examinee has to mention his/her name and enrollment on every subsequent page.
(vii) The examinee must write down the page no. on every page in the format (No. of page of total pages)
example-1 of 12, 2 of 12 etc.
(viii) The examinee must ensure that the scanned copy of the answer script is clear and legible, in PDF
format and uploaded as a single file and size should not be more than 30 MB. In case the office
receives multiple files of the answer script, only first response received shall be considered and other
responses shall be ignored.
(ix) The name of the PDF file of the answer script must be (Enrollment No) (underscore) (Paper Name)
for Example 150101154_Jurisprudence.
(x) The Scanned copy of the same has to be uploaded on Office Form through the link-
https://forms.office.com/r/UW746xh37i or through QR Code given above till 04:00 PM on
21/12/2021. Examinee can use only their MS Teams User ID given by University and must be careful
while uploading the answer script as only first response would be accepted. Examinees must also take
care before uploading the PDF file of answer script that all the pages of the script have been added in
the PDF file.
(To reset your Ms Teams password kindly e-mail [email protected])
Only responses received through Office Form will be accepted. Answers received
through email will not be considered.
(xi) In case of any technical difficulty the examinee may contact Dr. Aman Deep Singh, Associate
Controller of Examinations on +91-9793085772, +91-8840353326.
(xii) The students must note that they are required to finish the writing of answers in three hours while
they have to answer one long question less. The time of two hours is more than sufficient for
downloading paper and uploading the answer-sheets. They must submit their answer sheets within 5
hours. Responses received after 04:00 PM shall be dealt in accordance with the notification no. 332-21
dated 10.03.2021(http://rmlnlu.ac.in/pdf/Notice_regarding_110321.pdf) available on the University
Website. If they fail to do so they would be afforded another opportunity to appear in the physical
examination in such papers after the reopening of the University but, in the interests of the students,
the chance will not be counted as a repeat paper. The University would ensure justice to all the
students.

(SECTION – A) (03X20)
1. “Discuss Politics as art of government and Politics as power and struggle for scarce resources.
2. What are the problems Bureaucracy is facing in this age of Liberalisation, Privatisation and
Globalisation. (LPG)?
3. Critically evaluate the Behavioural Revolution in political science.
4. Critically discuss the Social Contract theory of Hobbes and Locke.
5. Write a critical note on the concept of Sovereignty. Also analyze the factors for the decrease of
sovereignty in this age of globalization.
6. What are the functions of the Legislature? Discuss arguments for and against bicameralism.
 (SECTION – B) (02X05)
Write short notes on any two of the following:
7. ‘Politics as ‘authoritative allocation of values’.
8. Rousseau’s theory of General Will.
9. Rise of PMO in India.
10. Referendum and Recall.

**************
 Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
End Term Examination December, 2021
Max-Marks :- 70 Time - 05 Hours B.A. LL.B./Ist Sem./ET/Dec.-21/Hist.-I

History-I
Note: Read the instructions carefully before attempting the answers:
(i) The Question Paper is divided into 2 Sections i.e. Section - A and Section - B.
(ii) The Examinee is required to attempt any 3 (three) Questions from Section - A, and any 2 (two)
Questions from Section - B. Figures in the margin indicate the Marks.
(iii) The assignment has to be submitted in a handwritten form. No other format would be acceptable.
(iv) The examinee has to write the answer in A4 Size or equivalent size sheets, ruled or un-ruled.
(v) The examinee must write his/her name, enrollment number, name of the subject on the first page of
the answer.
(vi) The examinee has to mention his/her name and enrollment on every subsequent page.
(vii) The examinee must write down the page no. on every page in the format (No. of page of total pages)
example-1 of 12, 2 of 12 etc.
(viii) The examinee must ensure that the scanned copy of the answer script is clear and legible, in PDF
format and uploaded as a single file and size should not be more than 30 MB. In case the office
receives multiple files of the answer script, only first response received shall be considered and other
responses shall be ignored.
(ix) The name of the PDF file of the answer script must be (Enrollment No) (underscore) (Paper Name)
for Example 150101154_Jurisprudence.
(x) The Scanned copy of the same has to be uploaded on Office Form through the link-
https://forms.office.com/r/UW746xh37i or through QR Code given above till 04:00 PM on
22/12/2021. Examinee can use only their MS Teams User ID given by University and must be careful
while uploading the answer script as only first response would be accepted. Examinees must also take
care before uploading the PDF file of answer script that all the pages of the script have been added in
the PDF file.
(To reset your Ms Teams password kindly e-mail [email protected])
Only responses received through Office Form will be accepted. Answers received
through email will not be considered.
(xi) In case of any technical difficulty the examinee may contact Dr. Aman Deep Singh, Associate
Controller of Examinations on +91-9793085772, +91-8840353326.
(xii) The students must note that they are required to finish the writing of answers in three hours while
they have to answer one long question less. The time of two hours is more than sufficient for
downloading paper and uploading the answer-sheets. They must submit their answer sheets within 5
hours. Responses received after 04:00 PM shall be dealt in accordance with the notification no. 332-21
dated 10.03.2021(http://rmlnlu.ac.in/pdf/Notice_regarding_110321.pdf) available on the University
Website. If they fail to do so they would be afforded another opportunity to appear in the physical
examination in such papers after the reopening of the University but, in the interests of the students,
the chance will not be counted as a repeat paper. The University would ensure justice to all the
students.

(SECTION – A) (03X20)
1. Why did 6th Century B.C. India create a fertile ground for voices of dissent, both in the
social and religious spheres? Account for the wider acceptability of Buddhism and
Jainism from amongst the proliferation of heterodox sects in the period?
2. Comment on the Judicial Administration of the Mauryas. Did the successive Mauryan
rulers’ excessive preoccupation with revenue extraction expose them to the charges of
despotism or was the incidence and innovations devised justifiable?
3. Why was decentralization of administrative authority, a viable form of governance during
the Gupta Period? How did it reflect in the bureaucratic setup and the military
organization of the regime?
4. What were the motivations of Allauddin Khilji for his widespread and far-reaching
economic reforms? In what respects is the Khilji legacy revolutionary?
5. What were the Ideas and Institutions that guided the Mughals in their governance and
how were these principles different from the earlier Turko-Afghans?
6. Can the Bhakti and Sufi Movements, as they evolved in India, be called Movements of
both religious as well as social reform? Did the two mutually impact each other?
(SECTION – B) (02X05)
Write short notes on any two of the following:
7. How did the religious beliefs of the Early Aryans hint towards materialism and
patriarchy?
8. What were the Property Rights conceded to the widows by the various Smritikars?
9. Do you agree that the failure of the Token Currency measure of Muhammad bin Tuglaq
was as much because of the faulty implementation of an ambitious scheme as it was
because of the behaviour of an irresponsible people?
10. Write a note on the Judicial Administration during the times of the Mughals.

**************
 Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
End Term Examination December, 2021
Max-Marks :- 70 Time - 05 Hours B.A. LL.B./Ist Sem./ET/Dec.-21/Eco.-I

Economics-I
Note: Read the instructions carefully before attempting the answers:
(i) The Question Paper is divided into 2 Sections i.e. Section - A and Section - B.
(ii) The Examinee is required to attempt any 3 (three) Questions from Section - A, and any 2 (two)
Questions from Section - B. Figures in the margin indicate the Marks.
(iii) The assignment has to be submitted in a handwritten form. No other format would be acceptable.
(iv) The examinee has to write the answer in A4 Size or equivalent size sheets, ruled or un-ruled.
(v) The examinee must write his/her name, enrollment number, name of the subject on the first page of
the answer.
(vi) The examinee has to mention his/her name and enrollment on every subsequent page.
(vii) The examinee must write down the page no. on every page in the format (No. of page of total pages)
example-1 of 12, 2 of 12 etc.
(viii) The examinee must ensure that the scanned copy of the answer script is clear and legible, in PDF
format and uploaded as a single file and size should not be more than 30 MB. In case the office
receives multiple files of the answer script, only first response received shall be considered and other
responses shall be ignored.
(ix) The name of the PDF file of the answer script must be (Enrollment No) (underscore) (Paper Name)
for Example 150101154_Jurisprudence.
(x) The Scanned copy of the same has to be uploaded on Office Form through the link-
https://forms.office.com/r/UW746xh37i or through QR Code given above till 04:00 PM on
23/12/2021. Examinee can use only their MS Teams User ID given by University and must be careful
while uploading the answer script as only first response would be accepted. Examinees must also take
care before uploading the PDF file of answer script that all the pages of the script have been added in
the PDF file.
(To reset your Ms Teams password kindly e-mail [email protected])
Only responses received through Office Form will be accepted. Answers received
through email will not be considered.
(xi) In case of any technical difficulty the examinee may contact Dr. Aman Deep Singh, Associate
Controller of Examinations on +91-9793085772, +91-8840353326.
(xii) The students must note that they are required to finish the writing of answers in three hours while
they have to answer one long question less. The time of two hours is more than sufficient for
downloading paper and uploading the answer-sheets. They must submit their answer sheets within 5
hours. Responses received after 04:00 PM shall be dealt in accordance with the notification no. 332-21
dated 10.03.2021(http://rmlnlu.ac.in/pdf/Notice_regarding_110321.pdf) available on the University
Website. If they fail to do so they would be afforded another opportunity to appear in the physical
examination in such papers after the reopening of the University but, in the interests of the students,
the chance will not be counted as a repeat paper. The University would ensure justice to all the
students.

(SECTION – A) (03X20)
1. Discuss the nature of economics giving its definitions.
2. What are the degrees of elasticity of demand? Discuss the practical importance of
elasticity.
3. Explain the break-up of Price effect into income and substitution effect for normal,
inferior and giffen goods.
4. Explain the price and output equilibrium of a firm under perfect competition in the short
run. When does the firm decide to ‘Shut-down’ in the short run?
5. Discuss the law of variable proportions citing its reasons.
6. What are the conditions of price discrimination under monopoly? Explain how
equilibrium is established when monopoly discriminates the prices for its customer.
(SECTION – B) (02X05)
Write short notes on any two of the following:
7. Consumer’s surplus.
8. Excess capacity in monopolistic competition.
9. Models of oligopoly.
10. Micro and macro economics.

**************
 Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
End Term Examination December, 2021
Max-Marks :- 70 Time - 05 Hours B.A. LL.B./Ist Sem./ET/Dec.-21/Psy.-I

Psychology-I
Note: Read the instructions carefully before attempting the answers:
(i) The Question Paper is divided into 2 Sections i.e. Section - A and Section - B.
(ii) The Examinee is required to attempt any 3 (three) Questions from Section - A, and any 2 (two)
Questions from Section - B. Figures in the margin indicate the Marks.
(iii) The assignment has to be submitted in a handwritten form. No other format would be acceptable.
(iv) The examinee has to write the answer in A4 Size or equivalent size sheets, ruled or un-ruled.
(v) The examinee must write his/her name, enrollment number, name of the subject on the first page of
the answer.
(vi) The examinee has to mention his/her name and enrollment on every subsequent page.
(vii) The examinee must write down the page no. on every page in the format (No. of page of total pages)
example-1 of 12, 2 of 12 etc.
(viii) The examinee must ensure that the scanned copy of the answer script is clear and legible, in PDF
format and uploaded as a single file and size should not be more than 30 MB. In case the office
receives multiple files of the answer script, only first response received shall be considered and other
responses shall be ignored.
(ix) The name of the PDF file of the answer script must be (Enrollment No) (underscore) (Paper Name)
for Example 150101154_Jurisprudence.
(x) The Scanned copy of the same has to be uploaded on Office Form through the link-
https://forms.office.com/r/UW746xh37i or through QR Code given above till 04:00 PM on
24/12/2021. Examinee can use only their MS Teams User ID given by University and must be careful
while uploading the answer script as only first response would be accepted. Examinees must also take
care before uploading the PDF file of answer script that all the pages of the script have been added in
the PDF file.
(To reset your Ms Teams password kindly e-mail [email protected])
Only responses received through Office Form will be accepted. Answers received
through email will not be considered.
(xi) In case of any technical difficulty the examinee may contact Dr. Aman Deep Singh, Associate
Controller of Examinations on +91-9793085772, +91-8840353326.
(xii) The students must note that they are required to finish the writing of answers in three hours while
they have to answer one long question less. The time of two hours is more than sufficient for
downloading paper and uploading the answer-sheets. They must submit their answer sheets within 5
hours. Responses received after 04:00 PM shall be dealt in accordance with the notification no. 332-21
dated 10.03.2021(http://rmlnlu.ac.in/pdf/Notice_regarding_110321.pdf) available on the University
Website. If they fail to do so they would be afforded another opportunity to appear in the physical
examination in such papers after the reopening of the University but, in the interests of the students,
the chance will not be counted as a repeat paper. The University would ensure justice to all the
students.
(SECTION – A) (03X20)
1. Examine the role of attention in perception. We tend to perceive our world as organized wholes
rather than unrelated chaotic stimuli. Elaborate.
2. Critically examine the various psychological perspectives giving relevant examples.
3. Examine the heritability of attitudes. Discuss the extent to which attitudes influence behavior.
4. Examine the nature-nurture debate within the context of aggression. Critically evaluate the
frustration-aggression hypothesis.
5. Memory is a complex process that encompasses alterations at multiple stages. Elucidate with
reference to the fallibility of memory.
6. Behaviorism proposes that learning occurs as a result of interaction with external stimuli.
Elaborate.
 (SECTION – B) (02X05)
Write short notes on any two of the following:
7. Insight learning.
8. Monocular cues.
9. Excitation transfer theory.
10. Social learning theory.

**************
 Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
End Term Examination December, 2021
Max-Marks :- 70 Time - 05 Hours B.A. LL.B./Ist Sem./ET/Dec.-21/BCL

Basics of Case Law

Note: Read the instructions carefully before attempting the answers:
(i) The Question Paper is divided into 2 Sections i.e. Section - A and Section - B.
(ii) The Examinee is required to attempt any 3 (three) Questions from Section - A, and any 2 (two)
Questions from Section - B. Figures in the margin indicate the Marks.
(iii) The assignment has to be submitted in a handwritten form. No other format would be acceptable.
(iv) The examinee has to write the answer in A4 Size or equivalent size sheets, ruled or un-ruled.
(v) The examinee must write his/her name, enrollment number, name of the subject on the first page of
the answer.
(vi) The examinee has to mention his/her name and enrollment on every subsequent page.
(vii) The examinee must write down the page no. on every page in the format (No. of page of total pages)
example-1 of 12, 2 of 12 etc.
(viii) The examinee must ensure that the scanned copy of the answer script is clear and legible, in PDF
format and uploaded as a single file and size should not be more than 30 MB. In case the office
receives multiple files of the answer script, only first response received shall be considered and other
responses shall be ignored.
(ix) The name of the PDF file of the answer script must be (Enrollment No) (underscore) (Paper Name)
for Example 150101154_Jurisprudence.
(x) The Scanned copy of the same has to be uploaded on Office Form through the link-
https://forms.office.com/r/UW746xh37i or through QR Code given above till 04:00 PM on
27/12/2021. Examinee can use only their MS Teams User ID given by University and must be careful
while uploading the answer script as only first response would be accepted. Examinees must also take
care before uploading the PDF file of answer script that all the pages of the script have been added in
the PDF file.
(To reset your Ms Teams password kindly e-mail [email protected])
Only responses received through Office Form will be accepted. Answers received
through email will not be considered.
(xi) In case of any technical difficulty the examinee may contact Dr. Aman Deep Singh, Associate
Controller of Examinations on +91-9793085772, +91-8840353326.
(xii) The students must note that they are required to finish the writing of answers in three hours while
they have to answer one long question less. The time of two hours is more than sufficient for
downloading paper and uploading the answer-sheets. They must submit their answer sheets within 5
hours. Responses received after 04:00 PM shall be dealt in accordance with the notification no. 332-21
dated 10.03.2021(http://rmlnlu.ac.in/pdf/Notice_regarding_110321.pdf) available on the University
Website. If they fail to do so they would be afforded another opportunity to appear in the physical
examination in such papers after the reopening of the University but, in the interests of the students,
the chance will not be counted as a repeat paper. The University would ensure justice to all the
students.

(SECTION – A) (03X20)
1. What do you understand by the doctrine of precedent? Discuss the development of the doctrine of
precedent in the common law system with special reference to India.
2. What do you mean by the hierarchy of courts? How does intra-court hierarchy affect the operation
of precedent in India?
What is/are the appropriate course(s) available in the following circumstances?
(a) A Division Bench of Supreme Court disagrees with an earlier decision of another Division
Bench of the Supreme Court.
(b) A Division Bench of Supreme Court disagrees with an earlier decision of a three-judges
Bench of the Supreme Court.
 (c) A legislative provision is challenged as unconstitutional and the matter is initially placed
before a three-judges Bench. It is, however, pointed out by the Union of India that on a
previous occasion, a Constitution Bench of five judges had ruled in favour of its
constitutionality.
3. (a) What is a ratio decidendi of a case? How is ratio decidendi determined? Do all decisions of
a superior court have ratio decidendi? Discuss with suitable examples.
4. What are the circumstances weakening the authority of a precedent? Are there also circumstances
that strengthen the authority of a precedent? Elaborate with suitable illustrations and examples.
5. Read the judgment annexed with the question paper and answer the following:
(a) Material facts
(b) Decision of the court
(c) Reason for the decision
(d) Obiter dicta, if any
(e) Majority opinion
(f) Minority opinion, if any
6. In modern legal systems, there is a clear division of powers among the different organs of the
State and the law making power belongs to the Legislature. However, there is a view that judges
also make law and the law so made is often inconsistent with the law made by the Legislature.
Do you agree with the view that judges make law? Elaborate your answer with illustrations and
examples with special reference to Indian experience.
(SECTION – B) (02X05)
Write short notes on any two of the following:
7. Reversal and overruling of a judgment.
8. Classification of judgments into reportable and non-reportable and the consequences thereof.
9. Development of law reporting in India.
10. A judgment per curiam.

**************
MANU/SC/0009/1966
Equivalent Citation: 1966AC J89, AIR1966SC 1697, 1966MhLJ881, 1966MPLJ913, [1966]3SC R527

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 615 of 1963
Decided On: 08.02.1966
Appellants:Sitaram Motilal Kalal
Vs.
Respondent:Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Subba Rao, M. Hidayatullah and R.S. Bachawat, JJ..
JUDGMENT
K. Subba Rao, J.
1. I regret my inability to agree.
2 . Sitaram Motilal Kalal, hereinafter called the 1st defendant is in agriculturist having
lands at Kathwada village. He owned a motor-car bearing registration No. BYD 316. He
entrusted the said car to Mohammed Yakub Haji, hereinafter called the 2nd defendant,
for plying the same as a taxi in Ahmedabad. The 2nd defendant ran the taxi, collected
the fare, met the expenditure incurred connection with the said service, rendered
account to the 1st defendant and remitted the balance to him. In short, the 2nd
defendant was not merely the driver of the taxi but he was also in entire charge of
plying the taxi in Ahmedabad. The 2nd defendant appointed the 3rd defendant as a
cleaner for the taxi. Presumably because the 2nd defendant wanted another to assist
him in driving the car during his absence from the city, he trained the 3rd defendant to
drive the car and on April 11, 1940, the 2nd defendant took the 3rd defendant to the
Regional Transport Authority for obtaining a licence for him. On that date a test was
being conducted by the Regional Transport Officer on the capacity of the 3rd defendant
to drive a car for the purpose of issuing to him a permanent licence for driving. At
about 5 p.m. on that day, the plaintiff, who is a leader practising in the courts of the
district of Ahmedabad, was going out of the compound of the office of the Regional
Transport Authority. At that time, the 3rd defendant was driving the car towards Lal
Darwaja side; without giving any signal, he took a sudden turn towards the gate of the
Office of the Regional Transport Authority, accelerated the speed and dashed the car
with great force against the pillar of the gate of the said office. In that process, the
plaintiff's leg was pinned between the compound wall and the gate, with the result it
was crushed and later on amputated. After recovering from a long illness, the plaintiff
filed a suit, being Special Suit No. 66 of 1950, in the Court of the Civil Judge,
Ahmedabad, for recovery of damages in a sum of Rs. 80,000 from defendants 1, 2 and
3 and the 4th defendant, the Indian Globe Insurance Company, Limited, with whom the
said car was insured. All defendants denied their liability.
3. The learned Civil Judge held that the 3rd defendant was negligent in driving the taxi,
that he was the servant of the 2nd defendant and not of the 1st defendant, and that
even if he was the servant of the 1st defendant as a cleaner of the car, he did act within
the scope of his authority when he drove the car and caused the accident. In the result,

15-12-2021 (Page 1 of 12) www.manupatra.com RML National Law University

he gave a decree against defendants 2 and 3 in a sum of Rs. 20,000 and dismissed the
suit against the 1st defendant; he also dismissed the suit against the 4th defendant, as
the 1st defendant, who insured the car, was exonerated from liability. Against the said
judgment and decree the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the High Court of Bombay in so
far as the decree went against him. A Division Bench of the said High Court came to the
conclusion that the entire management of the car was given to the 2nd defendant, that
in discharge of his duty as such manager he appointed the 3rd defendant with the
consent of the 1st defendant and that by clearest implication the 1st defendant, in the
circumstances of the case, must be regarded as having authorised the act of the 2nd
defendant in training the 3rd defendant as a car-driver and that, therefore, he would be
liable in damages for the accident caused by the negligence of the 2nd and 3rd
defendants in the course of their employment. So far as the 4th defendant was
concerned, the High Court held that in view of Section 96(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939, no decree could be directly passed against it, but the decree against the 1st
defendant could be executed against it in terms of the said section. It raised the
quantum of damages from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 25,000. The suit was decreed in favour of
the plaintiff against defendants 1,2 and 3 with costs. The 1st defendant, by certificate,
has preferred the present appeal.
4. Mr. M. V. Goswami, learned counsel for the 1st defendant appellant, contended that
the findings of the High Court that the 3rd defendant, the cleaner, was the servant of
the 1st defendant and that the 2nd defendant was authorised to secure a licence for the
cleaner to drive the car were vitiated by its reliance on two pieces of inadmissible
evidence, namely, the alleged admissions found in the 3rd defendant's written-
statement and in the reply notice given by him to that issued to him on behalf of the
plaintiff. He further contended that the 1st defendant could not be made liable for the
acts of either the 2nd defendant or the 3rd defendant committed outside the scope of
their employment.
5. Mr. Pershad, learned counsel for the respondent, though at first made an attempt to
sustain the admissibility of the said two pieces of evidence, later on clearly conceded
that they could not be relied upon against the 1st defendant. But, he contended that
even after the exclusion of the said two pieces of evidence, on the remaining evidence,
the circumstances established and the probabilities arising therefrom it could be held,
as the High Court did, that the 3rd defendant was the servant of the 1st defendant, that
the 2nd defendant was authorised by the 1st defendant to train the 3rd defendant as a
driver and get a licence for him so that he might assist him in driving the car during his
absence, that the accident took place during the course of the employment of the 3rd
defendant by the 1st defendant and that, therefore, the 1st defendant was liable in
damages for the accident. That apart, he further argued that the 2nd defendant in
discharge of his duty in the course of his employment negligently entrusted the car to
the 3rd defendant for the purpose of assisting him in the discharge of his duty and,
therefore, the 1st defendant would be liable for the accident.
6. Before we consider the problem presented to us, it will be useful to notice briefly the
relevant aspects of the law of torts vis-a-vis the liability of a owner of a car for the acts
of his driver.
7 . The doctrine of constructive liability is in a process of evolution. It is a great
principle of social justice. A court no longer need be overweighed with the old decisions
on the subject given under radically different circumstances, for now the owner of a car
in India is not burdened with an unpredictable liability as there is a statutory
compulsion on him to insure his car against third-party liability and his burden within

15-12-2021 (Page 2 of 12) www.manupatra.com RML National Law University

the framework of the Motor Vehicles Act is now transferred to the insurer.
8. The general principle is well settled and it is neatly given by Pearson, L.J., in Norton
v. Canadian Pacific Steamships. Ltd. (1961) 2 All. E.R. 785 thus :
"The owner of a car, when he takes or sends it on a journey for his own
purposes, owes a duty of care to other road users, and if any of them suffers
damage from negligent driving of the car, whether by the owner himself or by
an agent to whom he had delegated the driving, the owner is liable."
9. The limitation on this principle has been succinctly stated by Cockburn, C. J., Storey
v. Ashton I.L.R. (1868) Q.B. 476 thus :
"The true rule is that the master is only responsible so long as the servant can
be said to be doing the act, in the doing of which he is guilty of negligence, in
the course of his employment as servant."
10. A valuable test to ascertain whether a servant was negligent or not is found in
Ricketts v. Thos. Tilling, Limited. I.L.R. (1915) K.B. 644. There the facts were : the
conductor of an omnibus belonging to the defendants, in the presence of the driver,
who was seated beside him, for the purpose of turning the omnibus in the right
direction for the next journey, drove it through some by-streets so negligently that it
mounted the foot pavement and knocked down and seriously injured the plaintiff. The
Court of Appeal held that there was evidence of negligence on the part of the driver in
allowing the omnibus to be negligently driven by the conductor. In so holding, Buckley,
L. J., laid down the following test :
"It is a question for the jury whether the effective cause of the accident was
that the driver committed a breach of his duty (which was either to prevent
another person from driving or, if he allowed him to drive, to see that he drove
properly), or whether the driver had discharged that duty."
11. Pickford, L. J., said much to the same effect thus :
"It seems to me that the fact that he allowed somebody else to drive does not
divest him of the responsibility and duty he has towards his masters to see that
the omnibus is carefully, and not negligently, driven."
1 2 . This decision followed the decision in Englehart v. Farrant. (1897) 1 Q.B. 240.
There, the facts were : A man was employed by the defendants to drive a cart by which
delivery was to be made of parcels. The cart was manned by a man and a boy. The
man's duty was to drive; the boy's duty was to deliver the parcels. The boy had nothing
to do with the horses. The man's instructions were not to leave the cart. The driver did
in fact leave the cart, and while he was absent the lad drove on and came into collision
with the plaintiff's carriage and injured it. The question was whether the defendant was
liable. Lord Esher, M. R., in his judgment posed the question to be decided thus : "Now,
for what is the defendant liable ?" and answered it as follows :
"He is liable for the negligence of Mears (that was the driver) if that negligence
was "an effective cause' of the subsequent damage to the plaintiff."
13. Then lower down the learned Judge said :
"If a stranger interferes (with the driving) it does not follow that the defendant
is liable; but equally it does not follow that because a stranger interferes, the

15-12-2021 (Page 3 of 12) www.manupatra.com RML National Law University

 defendant is not liable if the negligence of a servant of his is an effective cause
of the accident."
14. The said decisions lay down the following two propositions : (1) An owner of a car
would be liable in damages for an accident caused by his servant in the course of his
employment; and (2) he would also be liable if the effective cause of the accident was
that the driver in the course of his employment committed a breach of his duty in either
not preventing another person from driving the car or neglecting to see that the said
person drove it properly. We are not concerned in this case with accidents caused by a
driver or a third party outside the scope of the employment, for in this case whether the
3rd defendant was authorised to drive the car by the 1st defendant or not the accident
was caused when the car was being driven for the purpose of efficiently plying the taxi
for hire for which the 2nd defendant was employed by the 1st defendant.
1 5 . Before considering the evidence in this case, at the outset some controversial
ground may be cleared. The High Court relied upon the admissions made by the 3rd
defendant in his written statement and the reply given by him to the plaintiff as
evidence against the 1st defendant. As I have indicated earlier, learned counsel for the
respondent fairly conceded that those pieces of evidence could not be relied upon as
admissions against the 1st defendant. Indeed, the High Court, though it accepted the
said two pieces of evidence, alternatively came to the same finding after excluding them
from evidence. For the purpose of this judgment I am assuming that the said pieces of
evidence are not relevant against the 1st defendant. Therefore, I will exclude the same
from my consideration.
16. Now let me take the case of the 3rd defendant and ascertain his legal relationship
with the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant was examined as D.W. 1. He deposed as
follows : He had agricultural lands in Kathwada which he was personally cultivating and
he resided at Kathwada; a year and a half before April 11, 1949, he had given his car to
the 2nd defendant for plying the same as a taxi; the 2nd defendant had to manage it
and he had full control over it; the 2nd defendant paid taxes for the car, spent for
petrol, kept the said car always at the railway station stand, rendered accounts for the
income he got from plying the said taxi whenever the 1st defendant went to Ahmedabad
from Kathwada and met him; the 2nd defendant was paid Rs. 90 p.m. He admitted in
the cross-examination that the 2nd defendant was a straightforward and honest man,
that he managed the taxi on his behalf, that up to May 1949 he did not go beyond his
instructions, that the car was plying for hire during day and night and that there were
no fixed hours of service. He further stated that he entrusted the 2nd defendant with the
duty of purchasing materials from Bombay. This witness no doubt denied that he had
authorised the 2nd defendant to engage the 3rd defendant or permitted the 2nd
defendant to teach the 3rd defendant car-driving. He also denied that there was debit of
Rs. 30 as pay of the 3rd defendant in the accounts submitted to him by the 2nd
defendant. But the accounts were not produced; and, therefore, an inference should be
drawn against him to the effect that if they were produced they would show that a
salary of Rs. 30 was paid to the 3rd defendant and he was the servant of the 1st
defendant.
17. The plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1. He deposed that the 3rd defendant was the
cleaner of the car and that he had personally seen the 3rd defendant cleaning the car in
question. The evidence of this witness so far as he said that he had seen that 3rd
defendant cleaning the car could be accepted particularly when it is consistent with the
probabilities of the case.

15-12-2021 (Page 4 of 12) www.manupatra.com RML National Law University

18. From the said facts it can reasonably be held that the 2nd defendant appointed the
3rd defendant as cleaner of the car, trained him as a driver and on the day of the
accident took him to the office of the Regional Transport Authority and permitted him to
drive the car to obtain a permanent licence for him.
19. On the said evidence and the probabilities arising therefrom the following inference
can reasonably be drawn : The 1st defendant, being the absentee owner of the car used
as taxi, entrusted the entire management of running the said car as taxi to the 2nd
defendant. The 2nd defendant was not a mere driver of the 1st defendant's car, but was
his manager to carry on the business of running his taxi. The 2nd defendant was,
therefore, given the authority to do all things necessary to keep the taxi in a good
condition and to run it effectively to earn profit. It is also implicit in the said
arrangement that if for plying the taxi throughout day and night and during the absence
of the 2nd defendant from the city an assistant was necessary to drive the car, the 2nd
defendant could employ one. The 2nd defendant employed the 3rd defendant as a
cleaner with the approval of the 1st defendant to keep the car in good condition. In that
context, if the 2nd defendant in the interest of the employer, instead of engaging a third
party as an assistant driver trained the 3rd defendant as such and sought to obtain a
license for him, it is not possible to suggest that the 2nd defendant in doing so
exceeded the authority conferred on him by the 1st defendant. I, therefore, find that the
2nd defendant did not exceed the authority conferred on him by the 1st defendant in
employing the 3rd defendant as a servant and permitting him to drive the car in order to
obtain a licence for assisting him as a driver. If so, it follows that the 3rd defendant was
the employee of the 1st defendant in his capacity as an assistant to the driver. In that
even the 1st defendant would certainly be liable in damages for the accident caused by
the 3rd defendant's negligence during the course of his employment.
20. Though I am prima facie inclined to accept the second proposition also as correct
and that the 2nd defendant's negligence in permitting the third defendant to drive the
car was the effective cause of the accident, in view of my first finding it is not necessary
to express my final opinion thereon.
21. Now let me turn to the other decisions cited at the Bar. The decision of the Court of
Appeal in Donovan v. Laing. Wharton, and Down Construction Syndicate, Ltd. I.L.R.
(1893) Q.B. 629 deals with a case where, though the man in charge of a crane in the
working whereof an accident was caused was the general servant of the defendants,
they had parted with the power of controlling him with regard to the matter on which he
was engaged. They had lent to a firm which was engaged in loading a ship at their
wharf the crane with a man in charge of it. It is, therefore, a case where when the
accident took place the man, who was operating the crane, was not the servant of the
defendants.
22. In Britt v. Galmoye and Nevill (1927) 44 T.L.R. 294 the first defendant, who had
the 2nd defendant in his employment as a van driver, lent him his private car after the
day's work was finished to take friends to a theatre and the 2nd defendant by his
negligent driving injured the plaintiff. It was held that the journey was not on the
master's business and the master was not in control and, therefore, he was not liable
for the servant's act. The principle of this decision is that a owner of a car will not be
liable for the accident caused by his employee if it was caused outside the master's
employment.
2 3 . The decision in Girijashankar Dayashankar Vaidya v. The B.B. and C.I. Railway
MANU/MH/0069/1917 : AIR1918Bom129 turned upon the construction of Section 108 of

15-12-2021 (Page 5 of 12) www.manupatra.com RML National Law University

the Indian Railways Act. The servants of the railway assaulted the plaintiff for pulling
the communication chain. The Court held that the railway was not liable as the servants
were not authorised under the statute to arrest the plaintiff for pulling the
communication chain and, therefore, they were not liable for the assaults committed by
their servants.
24. In Nalini Ranjan Sen Gupta v. Corporation of Calcutta I.L.R. (1925) Cal. 983 when a
chauffeur, who was taking his master's car to a workshop for repairs, finding the lane
leading to it impassable, left the car in charge of the cleaner, whose duty was only to
clean the car and who was forbidden to drive it, and went to the workshop, and during
his absence the cleaner drove it against and broke a municipal lamp-post, it was held
on the facts of the case that the chauffeur was not negligent and that the cleaner caused
the accident outside the scope of his employment and, therefore, the owner was not
liable.
2 5 . The decision in Emperor v. Shantaram Ram Wadkar MANU/MH/0019/1932 :
(1932)34BOMLR897 turned upon the meaning of the word "allowed" in Section 6 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1914, and is not of any help in deciding the present case. The
decision in The Managing Director, R.U.M.S. Ltd., Rasipuram v. Ramaswamy Goudan
I.L.R. 1957 Mad. 513 followed Ricketts v. Thos. Tilling, Ltd., I.L.R. (1915) K.B. 644F
and held that where the servant who was charged with the duty of driving a bus was
responsible for allowing the conductor to drive and if he was so responsible he must be
equally responsible for the negligent driving by the person who was permitted to drive.
The last decision accepted the second proposition and applied it to the facts of the case
before the court. The said decisions do not in any way detract from the view expressed
by me.
26. Both the Courts below concurrently found on the evidence that the 3rd defendant
was guilty of negligence in causing the accident. We did not permit the learned counsel
for the appellant to question the correctness of the said finding. I accept it. No
argument was advanced on the question of the quantum of damages.
27. In the result, agreeing with the High Court, I hold that the 1st defendant is liable in
damages to the plaintiff for the accident caused by the 3rd defendant. The appeal fails
and is dismissed with costs.
M. Hidayatullah, J.
28. The facts need not be stated elaborately for there is little dispute about them. We
shall therefore content ourselves with such facts as serve to introduce the reasons for
our opposite conclusions.
29. The respondent sued three persons for damages for personal injuries which led to
the amputation of one of his legs in a motorcar accident. The vehicle belonged to the
appellant (first defendant) who had entrusted it to the second respondent for being
plied as a taxi. We shall refer to the appellant as the owner of the vehicle or, shortly,
owner. At the time of the accident, it was driven by the third defendant to whom it had
been handed over by the second defendant for the purpose of taking a driving test to
obtain a driver's licence. In fact, the motor inspector taking the test was by the side of
the third defendant when he was driving. The second defendant was not present in the
car but was present when the third defendant took the car and had given permission.
The suit was defended by the owner of the vehicle for himself. The second defendant
remained absent at the trial. The third defendant filed a written statement but took no
further interest. The Trial Judge decreed a part of the claim against the second and third

15-12-2021 (Page 6 of 12) www.manupatra.com RML National Law University

defendants, but held that the owner of the vehicle was not liable. On appeal to the High
Court of Bombay, the owner of the vehicle was also held responsible and the decree of
the court below was also enhanced. The present appeal is by the owner of the vehicle
on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court.
30. We are not concerned with the quantum of damages and the above facts therefore
suffice for the purpose of our judgment. Since the responsibility of the owner of the
vehicle is vicarious, the relationship between him and the other two defendants must be
properly determined and something may now be said about that relationship.
Admittedly the owner of the vehicle had handed it over to the second defendant to ply it
on hire as a taxi in Ahmedabad. The second defendant drove the taxi, collected the
fares, met the expenses and handed over the balance with accounts to the owner. The
second defendant, of course, did not do this free. Either he was a servant or an agent.
The different between a servant and an agent is that the principal has the right to order
what should be done, but the master has an additional right to say how it should be
done. The evidence does not establish that the owner directed how the taxi should be
run and the relationship would be that of principal and agent. The owner, however,
stated that he paid Rs. 90 per month to the second defendant and this would show that
the second defendant was his servant. We shall consider the matter under both heads.
3 1 . The relationship between the third defendant (who was at the wheel when the
accident happened) and the owner on the one hand and the second defendant on the
other is in dispute. There is, however, evidence which has been believed that the third
defendant used to clean the taxi. He was probably employed by the owner or on his
behalf by the second defendant. In addition, it appears, that he was being trained to
take out a driver's licence, presumably with the idea of taking a share in the driving of
the taxi. There is nothing to show that in this arrangement, the owner had taken any
part whatever. The trial Judge held that the third defendant was a servant of the second
defendant and relied for this purpose on a statement (Ex. P-97) made by the second
defendant to the police when proceedings were taken against the driver for negligently
causing hurt to the respondent. The Trial Judge further held that the third defendant
was not employed by the owner and the owner was not liable. Alternatively, he held
that even if the third defendant was employed by the owner, the duty of the third
defendant was to clean the car and not to drive it, and the owner was again not liable
because the cleaner was not acting within the scope of his employment. The High Court
relying on the reply of the third defendant (Ex. P-87) in answer to a notice from the
respondent and on the written statement (Ex. 16) filed by him in the suit held that the
third defendant was himself probably a servant and in any event, the second defendant
as manager of the taxi was clearly authorised to allow the third defendant to drive it.
The High Court therefore decreed the claim against the owner also and enhanced the
amount of damages awarded by the court of trial.
3 2 . The first question is whether Exs. 97, 87, and 16 are admissible against the
appellant or not. Admission of the documents means admission of facts contained in the
documents. The facts were not deposed to by any one and the truth of these statements
was not in any way tested. To admit them would be prejudicial to the appellant and
strictly speaking no provision of law makes the admissions admissible against a person
other than the person making them. Unless such person can be said to be bound by the
admission. This condition does not obtain here. Learned counsel for the respondent,
although he attempted to do so at first, did not also rely upon them. We are of the
opinion that these documents were inadmissible against the owner. With this evidence
excluded there is nothing to show that the owner had employed the defendant to drive
the taxi or given him permission to drive the taxi or asked him to take a test to obtain a

15-12-2021 (Page 7 of 12) www.manupatra.com RML National Law University

driver's licence. There is also nothing to show that he had given any authority to the
second defendant to employ strangers to drive the taxi or to take driving tests. The
upshot thus is that second defendant was a of the owner and the third defendant was a
servant of the second defendant or at best a cleaner of the taxi. There is evidence,
however, to show that the second defendant was present when the vehicle was
borrowed for taking the test and had willingly allowed the third defendant to drive the
vehicle for the purpose. On these facts, the question is whether the owner of the vehicle
can be held responsible.
33. The law is settled that master is vicariously liable for the acts of his servants acting
in the course of his employment. Unless the act is done in the course of employment,
the servant's act does not make the employer liable. In other words, for the master's
liability to arise, the act must be a wrongful act authorised by the master or a wrongful
and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master. The driver of a car
taking the car on the master's business makes him vicariously liable if he commits an
accident. But it is equally well-settled that if the servant, at the time of the accident, is
not acting within the course of his employment but is doing something for himself the
master is not liable. There is a presumption that a vehicle is driven on the master's
business and by his authorised agent or servant but the presumption can be met. It was
negatived in this case, because the vehicle was proved to be driven by an unauthorised
person and on his own business. The de facto driver was not the driver or the agent of
the owner but one who had obtained the car for his own business not even from the
master but from a servant of the master. Prima facie, the owner would not be liable in
such circumstances.
34. Ricketts' I.L.R. (1915) K.B. 644 case which was relied upon by the respondent is a
case in which the driver of an omnibus asked the conductor to drive the omnibus and
turn it round to make it face in the right direction for the next journey. The master was
held liable vicariously, because the driver was negligent in the performance of the
master's work. The driver was in fact seated by the side of the conductor at the time
when the omnibus was turned round. In other words, the turning round of the vehicle
was an act within the employer's business and not something outside it. When the
driver asked the conductor to drive the omnibus for his master's business, he did the
master's work in a negligent way. The master was therefore rightly held responsible. In
Ricketts' I.L.R. (1915) K.B. 644, case all the three Judges expressed the opinion that
there should be a new trial. As it was a jury trial and the driver was sitting by the side
of the conductor and had control, the question was whether it should not have been
found what was the "effective cause" of the accident, that is to say, that act of an utter
stranger or that of a servant acting negligently in the course of his employment. It is
significant that in Trust Co. Ltd., v. de Silva (1956) 1 W.L.R. 376, Ricketts' case was
cited but was not referred to by Lord Tucker pronouncing the judgment on behalf of the
Judicial Committee. The reason was that the case before the Privy Council fell within the
rule which was stated by Lord Tucker to be :
"It is now well settled that the person in control of a carriage or motor
vehicle........ though not actually driving....... is liable for the negligence of the
driver over whom he has the right to exercise control."
35. The above principle is applicable when the person owning the vehicle is present. In
Ricketts' I.L.R. (1915) K.B. 644 case the driver was present and he asked the conductor
to do the work which he was employed to do and this negligence made the omnibus
company liable. In Beard v. London General Omnibus Co. (1900) 2 Q.B. 530 the
conductor attempted to turn the omnibus on his own initiative and caused an accident.

15-12-2021 (Page 8 of 12) www.manupatra.com RML National Law University

The company was held not liable, because it was not a part of the conductor's duty to
drive the omnibus. It was not negligence in the course of his employment.
36. Similarly, in Engelhart's (1927) 44 T.L.R. 29 case, two servants were engaged upon
their master's business. One was to drive a cart and mind the horses and the other - a
boy travelling in the cart was to deliver parcels. The driver left the cart unattended and
the boy drove it to deliver the parcels and caused the accident. The master was held
responsible. The driver ought to have known that if he left the cart the boy would drive
it in the fulfilment of the work of the master. When the driver left the cart in the charge
of the boy he acted negligently in the course of his master's business. No doubt, 'the
effective cause' was the negligence of the servant which made the master responsible
but that is not the whole of the matter.
37. In Ricketts' I.L.R. (1915) K.B. 644 and Engelhart's (1897) 1 Q.B. 240 cases each
servant was acting on the master's business at the time. If the two servants in the
Engelhart's case (1897) 1 Q.B. 240 had gone for a picnic or the boy had borrowed the
cart to give a joy ride to his friends, the master would not have been liable although the
effective cause would still have been the elder servant's negligence. The difference lies
in this that in the two cases the negligent act took place in the execution of the master's
business and in the examples suggested by us, no question of master's business or the
scope of the servant's or agent's employment arises, because the acts are clearly
outside that scope. Going for a picnic or lending the cart so that the co-servant's friends
may go for an outing is not in the course of the master's employment. Beard's case
(1900) 2 Q.B. 530 when compared with Ricketts' case I.L.R. (1915) K.B. 644 brings out
the difference. In Britt v. Golmoye and Nevill (1927) 44 T.L.R. 294 the master himself
lent the car to the servant for the latter's private work and the master was not held
responsible for the negligence of the servant in causing injury because neither was the
journey on the master's account nor was the master in control at the time. Sir John
Salmond (13th Edn. P. 124) has summed up the law thus :
".... a master is not responsible for the negligence or other wrongful act of his
servant simply because it is committed at a time when the servant is engaged
on his master's business. It must be committed in the course of that business,
so as to form a part of it, and not be merely coincident in time with it."
38. The scope of employment of a servant need not of course be viewed narrowly, but
the essential element that the wrong must be committed by the servant during the
course of the employment, i.e. in doing the master's business ought always to be
present. In Century Insurance Co. v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board (1942) A.C.
509, the driver of a petrol lorry while transferring petrol from the lorry to an
underground tank, struck a match to light a cigarette and throw it on the floor, and
thereby caused a fire and explosion which did great damage. The masters were held
liable because the negligence was in the discharge of the duty by the servant. Although
the act of lighting the cigarette was something the driver did for himself and was by
itself quite harmless, it could not be regarded in the abstract and was a negligent
method of conducting the master's work. Similarly, in Smith v. Martin (1911) 2 K.B.
775 a school authority was held liable when a teacher, during school hours sent a girl
aged 14 wearing a print pinafore to poke the fire and to draw out the damper in a grate
in the teacher's common room and the child was burnt. It was held that the teacher's
duty was to provide education in the widest sense and included expecting obedience
from the pupils and this was an act of negligence in the discharge of such duty.
39. We know of no further extension of the doctrine of a master's liability for the act of

15-12-2021 (Page 9 of 12) www.manupatra.com RML National Law University

his servants during the course of his employment which would cover this case. It cannot
possibly be stated today that the master is responsible for the acts of his servant done,
not in the course of employment, but outside it. In the present case, the third defendant
was not doing the master's work nor was the second defendant acting within the scope
of his employment when he lent the taxi. The third defendant had borrowed the taxi for
a work of his own and the second defendant in lending it was not acting in the master's
business. The second defendant was not present in the taxi so that he could be said to
be in control on behalf of his employer when the taxi was driven.
40. The law with regard to agents is the same. As was observed by Lord Atkinson in
Samson v. Aitchison (1912) A.C. 884 it is a matter of indifference whether a person be
styled a servant or agent since it is the retention of control which makes the owner or
the principal responsible. Just as the tort must be committed by a servant either under
the actual control of his master or while acting in the course of his employment, the act
of the agent will only make the principle liable if it is done within the scope of his
authority. By a process of ratiocination, the course have made a slight distinction by
attempting to find a 'right of control' as the basis of the master's liabilities and have
distinguished it from a 'right to control' in cases of simple agency to bring the two cases
together. We find it simpler to state the law that an agent will make the principal
responsible so long as the agent does the act within the scope of his authority or does
so under the actual control of the principal. We do not subscribe to the extension of the
doctrine that the act of the servant or the agent must be for the master's benefit. This
extension was made by Willes J. in Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank I.L.R. (1867)
Ex. 259. The word 'benefit' is vague and it is better to adhere to the words 'course of
employment' or the 'scope of authority.' There is much institutional criticism of such
extension. Similarly, we are doubtful whether the extension of the principle by the
introduction of the doctrine of implied authority, which was relied upon in the school
master's case referred to above, was quite correct. If the dictum is accepted, not only
the master would be liable for what he may be supposed to have 'impliedly authorised'
the servant to do (however illegal but also for all the servant's negligence not in doing
his duty but in doing something on his own account when he should be properly acting
for the master. The true rule in such cases is the one stated by Cockburn C. J. in Storey
v. Ashton (1868) 4 Q.B.D. 476 thus :
".......... that the master is only responsible so long as the servant can be said
to the doing the act, in the doing of which he is guilty of negligence, in the
course of his employment as servant."
or as Lush J. put it,
"The question in all such cases as the present is whether the servant was doing
that which the master employed him to do."
4 1 . There has been in recent years another extension of the responsibility of the
principal for the act of an agent. In Ormrod and another v. Crosville Motor Services
Ltd., and another (1953) 2 All. E.R. 753 the owner was attending the Monte Carlo motor
car rally. He asked a friend to drive the car from Birkenhead to Monte Carlo. The friend
was carrying a suit case belonging to the owner. Later they were to go a holiday
together in the car. While the motor car was being driven it collided with a motor
omnibus and the owner of the car was held responsible for the damage. Singleton, L. J.
observed :
"It has been said more than once that a driver of a motor car must be doing

15-12-2021 (Page 10 of 12) www.manupatra.com RML National Law University

 something for the owner of the car in order to become an agent of the owner.
The mere fact of consent by the owner to the use of a chattel is not proof of
agency, but the purpose for which this car was being taken down the road on
the morning of the accident was either that it should be used by the owner, the
third party, or that it should be use for the joint purposes of the male plaintiff
and the third party when it reached Monte Carlo."
42. Lord Denning (then Lord Justice) observed :
"It has often been supposed that the owner of a vehicle is only liable for the
negligence of the driver if that driver is his servant acting in the course of his
employment. This is not correct. The owner is also liable if the driver is, with
the owner's consent, driving the car on the owner's business or for the owner's
purposes.
....... The law puts an especial responsibility on the owner of a vehicle who
allows it to go on the road in charge of someone else, no matter whether it is
his servant, his friend, or anyone else. It is being used wholly or partly on the
owner's business or for the owner's purpose, the owner is liable for any
negligence on the part of the driver. The owner only escapes liability when he
lends it or hires it to a third person to be used for purposes in which the owner
has no interest or concern."
43. Even these dicta which make the owner or principal responsible when the vehicle is
driven partly on their account and partly on the business of the driver, do not take the
matter much further. The learned Judges found the agency from the desire of the owner
that the friend should carry his suit case and keep the car ready at Monte Carlo for a
holiday.
44. Applying the above tests to the facts of this case, we find that there is no proof that
the second defendant was authorised to coach the cleaner so that the cleaner might
become a driver and drive the taxi. It appears more probable that the second defendant
wanted someone to assist him in driving the taxi for part of the time and was training
the third defendant to share the task of driving. The owner stated on oath that he had
not given any such authority to the second defendant. The trial Judges accepted that
evidence. The High Court differed from the trial Judge by relying upon inadmissible
evidence. Once the inadmissible evidence is rightly excluded, it is quite clear that this
was an act done not on the owner's business but either on the business of the third
defendant or that of the third and the second defendants together. It has not been
proved to have been even impliedly authorised by the owner or to come within any of
the extensions of the doctrine of scope of employment which we have noticed above.
The High Court would probably not have passed a decree against the owner if it had not
been persuaded to hold the three pieces of evidence to be admissible and relevant. In
the absence of that evidence the acts of the second and the third defendants viewed
separately or collectively were not within the scope of their respective or even joint
employment and the owner was therefore not responsible. We would accordingly allow
the appeal, in so far as the appellant is concerned but in the circumstances of the case
would direct that there should be no order as to costs throughout.
ORDER
45. In accordance with the opinion of the majority the appeal is allowed in respect of
the appellant. In the circumstances of the case there would be no order as to costs
throughout.

15-12-2021 (Page 11 of 12) www.manupatra.com RML National Law University

 © Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

15-12-2021 (Page 12 of 12) www.manupatra.com RML National Law University

 Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
End Term Examination December, 2021
Max-Marks :- 70 Time - 05 Hours B.A. LL.B./Ist Sem./ET/Dec.-21/Eng.-I

English-I
Note: Read the instructions carefully before attempting the answers:
(i) The Question Paper is divided into 2 Sections i.e. Section - A and Section - B.
(ii) The Examinee is required to attempt any 3 (three) Questions from Section - A, and any 2 (two)
Questions from Section - B. Figures in the margin indicate the Marks.
(iii) The assignment has to be submitted in a handwritten form. No other format would be acceptable.
(iv) The examinee has to write the answer in A4 Size or equivalent size sheets, ruled or un-ruled.
(v) The examinee must write his/her name, enrollment number, name of the subject on the first page of
the answer.
(vi) The examinee has to mention his/her name and enrollment on every subsequent page.
(vii) The examinee must write down the page no. on every page in the format (No. of page of total pages)
example-1 of 12, 2 of 12 etc.
(viii) The examinee must ensure that the scanned copy of the answer script is clear and legible, in PDF
format and uploaded as a single file and size should not be more than 30 MB. In case the office
receives multiple files of the answer script, only first response received shall be considered and other
responses shall be ignored.
(ix) The name of the PDF file of the answer script must be (Enrollment No) (underscore) (Paper Name)
for Example 150101154_Jurisprudence.
(x) The Scanned copy of the same has to be uploaded on Office Form through the link-
https://forms.office.com/r/UW746xh37i or through QR Code given above till 04:00 PM on
28/12/2021. Examinee can use only their MS Teams User ID given by University and must be careful
while uploading the answer script as only first response would be accepted. Examinees must also take
care before uploading the PDF file of answer script that all the pages of the script have been added in
the PDF file.
(To reset your Ms Teams password kindly e-mail [email protected])
Only responses received through Office Form will be accepted. Answers received
through email will not be considered.
(xi) In case of any technical difficulty the examinee may contact Dr. Aman Deep Singh, Associate
Controller of Examinations on +91-9793085772, +91-8840353326.
(xii) The students must note that they are required to finish the writing of answers in three hours while
they have to answer one long question less. The time of two hours is more than sufficient for
downloading paper and uploading the answer-sheets. They must submit their answer sheets within 5
hours. Responses received after 04:00 PM shall be dealt in accordance with the notification no. 332-21
dated 10.03.2021(http://rmlnlu.ac.in/pdf/Notice_regarding_110321.pdf) available on the University
Website. If they fail to do so they would be afforded another opportunity to appear in the physical
examination in such papers after the reopening of the University but, in the interests of the students,
the chance will not be counted as a repeat paper. The University would ensure justice to all the
students.
(SECTION – A) (03X20)
1. Discuss characteristics and conventions of Professional Communication with a few examples.
2. Galsworthy’s Justice is a bitter indictment of English Law, penal and prison system. Discuss.
3. “Professor Melvin Tolson in the movie Great Debaters and Andrew Beckett in Philadelphia
could finally deal with the issues of discrimination in their own terms.” Discuss.
4. Write a critical note on Gertrude Jennings’ play Five Birds in a Cage.
5. Use any two techniques for developing a paragraph on the topic “Creativity and Happiness”.
6. Discuss key ideas on Essay Writing with reference to Francis Bacon’s and EV Lucas’ essays “Of
Studies” & “On Finding Things” respectively.
 (SECTION – B) (02X05)
Write short notes on any two of the following:
7. Phonemic Transcription.
8. Legal Aspects of Professional Communication.
9. Habeas Corpus.
10. Minutes.

**************
 Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
End Term Examination December, 2021
Max-Marks :- 70 Time - 05 Hours B.A. LL.B./Ist Sem./ET/Dec.-21/BoL

Basics of Legislation
Note: Read the instructions carefully before attempting the answers:
(i) The Question Paper is divided into 2 Sections i.e. Section - A and Section - B.
(ii) The Examinee is required to attempt any 3 (three) Questions from Section - A, and any 2 (two)
Questions from Section - B. Figures in the margin indicate the Marks.
(iii) The assignment has to be submitted in a handwritten form. No other format would be acceptable.
(iv) The examinee has to write the answer in A4 Size or equivalent size sheets, ruled or un-ruled.
(v) The examinee must write his/her name, enrollment number, name of the subject on the first page of
the answer.
(vi) The examinee has to mention his/her name and enrollment on every subsequent page.
(vii) The examinee must write down the page no. on every page in the format (No. of page of total pages)
example-1 of 12, 2 of 12 etc.
(viii) The examinee must ensure that the scanned copy of the answer script is clear and legible, in PDF
format and uploaded as a single file and size should not be more than 30 MB. In case the office
receives multiple files of the answer script, only first response received shall be considered and other
responses shall be ignored.
(ix) The name of the PDF file of the answer script must be (Enrollment No) (underscore) (Paper Name)
for Example 150101154_Jurisprudence.
(x) The Scanned copy of the same has to be uploaded on Office Form through the link-
https://forms.office.com/r/UW746xh37i or through QR Code given above till 04:00 PM on
29/12/2021. Examinee can use only their MS Teams User ID given by University and must be careful
while uploading the answer script as only first response would be accepted. Examinees must also take
care before uploading the PDF file of answer script that all the pages of the script have been added in
the PDF file.
(To reset your Ms Teams password kindly e-mail [email protected])
Only responses received through Office Form will be accepted. Answers received
through email will not be considered.
(xi) In case of any technical difficulty the examinee may contact Dr. Aman Deep Singh, Associate
Controller of Examinations on +91-9793085772, +91-8840353326.
(xii) The students must note that they are required to finish the writing of answers in three hours while
they have to answer one long question less. The time of two hours is more than sufficient for
downloading paper and uploading the answer-sheets. They must submit their answer sheets within 5
hours. Responses received after 04:00 PM shall be dealt in accordance with the notification no. 332-21
dated 10.03.2021(http://rmlnlu.ac.in/pdf/Notice_regarding_110321.pdf) available on the University
Website. If they fail to do so they would be afforded another opportunity to appear in the physical
examination in such papers after the reopening of the University but, in the interests of the students,
the chance will not be counted as a repeat paper. The University would ensure justice to all the
students.
(SECTION – A) (03X20)
1. Discuss the Marginal Note and Commencement Clause in detail. Give examples and Case Law to
support your answer.
2. Enumerate the types of Legislation. Discuss the types of legislations passed by the Legislature.
3. Compare Legislation with other Sources of Law.
4. What precautions should be taken while drafting a Legislation? Discuss.
5. What are the Constitutional Norms for a legislation to be followed in India? Discuss with
Constitutional provisions and Case Law.
6. What is the role of the Public Opinion in making a Legislation? Discuss.
 (SECTION – B) (02X05)
Write short notes on any two of the following:
7. Definition Clause.
8. Judicial Legislation.
9. Custom vs. Usage.
10. Composition of Law Commission of India.

**************