Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Civil Judge / Grade-III)

# Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Civil Judge / Grade-III) — Study Notes

GROUNDED (web-sourced from free-access law: Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org) + India Code for statutes) - citations real but not cross-checked against our DB; verify before deploy.

---

## CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

### Fundamental Rights (Articles 12–35)

**Proposition:** Fundamental rights are enforceable against the State and apply to corporate bodies as well as individuals.

**Authority:** Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India (1950) 1 SCR 869
- Supreme Court held that fundamental rights under the Constitution are available not only to natural persons but also to corporate bodies, except where the language of the provision or the nature of the right compels otherwise.
- Source: indiankanoon.org

**Proposition:** Right to life (Article 21) includes right to dignity and fair trial.

**Authority:** Indian Evidence Act Ss. 101–103 (burden of proof framework); Rishi Kesh Singh v. The State (1968) interpreted burden of proof as constitutional protection of life and liberty.
- Source: indiankanoon.org

---

## CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

### Jurisdiction

**Proposition:** Civil courts have jurisdiction over all suits of a civil nature except where expressly or impliedly barred by law.

**Authority:** Section 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (statutory definition via indiankanoon.org).

**Proposition:** Supreme Court has power to transfer suits between courts in different states in the ends of justice.

**Authority:** Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Supreme Court transfer powers (indiankanoon.org).

### Res Judicata (Section 11)

**Proposition:** Res judicata is not confined to Section 11 but is of wider general application; it applies to different stages of the same suit as to findings on issues in different suits.

**Authority:** Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & Ors (1963) 1964 AIR 993, 1964 SCR (5) 946
- Supreme Court held that the scope of res judicata extends beyond the statutory text, preventing repeated agitation of decided matters to bring finality and prevent endless litigation.
- Source: indiankanoon.org

**Proposition:** Res judicata evolved from ancient Indian jurisprudence ("prang nyaya" = previous decision); its object is to prevent endless litigation and harassment after a fair hearing by competent court.

**Authority:** Lala Jageshwar Prasad v. Shyam Behari Lal (1965) — foundational principle quoted in search results (indiankanoon.org).

---

## INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

### Consideration

**Proposition:** Consideration is the act, forbearance, or promise by the promisee (or another at the promisor's desire) given in exchange for the promise; it must be lawful.

**Authority:** Section 2(d), Indian Contract Act, 1872 (statutory definition via indiankanoon.org).

**Proposition:** Adequacy of consideration is not a bar to contract formation; inadequacy may be evidence of lack of free consent but does not void the contract.

**Authority:** Section 25, Indian Contract Act, 1872 (indiankanoon.org).

### Void Agreements

**Proposition:** Agreement made under mutual mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement is void.

**Authority:** Section 20, Indian Contract Act, 1872 (indiankanoon.org).

**Proposition:** Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.

**Authority:** Section 23, Indian Contract Act, 1872 (indiankanoon.org).

**Proposition:** Agreements by way of wager are void; no suit lies for recovery of allegedly won amounts.

**Authority:** Section 30, Indian Contract Act, 1872 (indiankanoon.org).

**Proposition:** Every agreement in restraint of lawful profession, trade, or business is void to that extent.

**Authority:** Section 27, Indian Contract Act, 1872 (indiankanoon.org).

### Breach and Remedies

**Proposition:** On breach of contract, the injured party is entitled to compensation for loss or damage naturally arising from the breach, or which the parties knew would likely result.

**Authority:** Section 73, Indian Contract Act, 1872 (indiankanoon.org).

**Proposition:** Where a sum is named as liquidated damages or penalty, reasonable compensation is awarded not exceeding that amount; it must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss if it is to be liquidated damages.

**Authority:** Section 74, Indian Contract Act, 1872; endorsed in Bhajan Singh Hardit Singh & Co., Delhi v. Karson Agency (India) & Ors (1967) (indiankanoon.org).

---

## TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882

### Mortgage vs. Pledge

**Proposition:** A mortgage is the transfer of interest in specific immovable property to secure repayment of loan or debt; in a simple mortgage, the mortgagor binds himself personally without delivery of possession.

**Authority:** Section 58, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (indiankanoon.org).

**Proposition:** A pledge is the delivery of chattels (movable property) as security; contrast with mortgage of immovables.

**Authority:** Section 172, Indian Contract Act, 1872 (pledge definition); Section 58, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (mortgage definition) (indiankanoon.org).

### Mortgagor's Right of Redemption

**Proposition:** After the principal money becomes due, the mortgagor has the right, on payment or proper tender, to require the mortgagee to re-deliver the mortgage deed and documents and re-transfer the property.

**Authority:** Transfer of Property Act, 1882, redemption provisions (indiankanoon.org).

---

## INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

### Murder vs. Culpable Homicide

**Proposition:** Culpable homicide is the genus; murder is its specie. All murder is culpable homicide, but not vice versa.

**Authority:** Section 299 (culpable homicide) and Section 300 (murder) defined in Indian Penal Code, 1860 (indiankanoon.org).

**Proposition:** Culpable homicide becomes murder if the act is done with intention to cause death, or with knowledge that bodily injury is likely to cause death, or if the injury is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, or if the act is so imminently dangerous it must in all probability cause death.

**Authority:** Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (indiankanoon.org).

**Proposition:** Exception 1 to Section 300: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes death of the provoker or causes death by mistake or accident.

**Authority:** Section 300 Exception 1, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (indiankanoon.org).

### Theft, Extortion, Robbery

**Proposition:** Theft is defined in Section 378 IPC; extortion is defined in Section 383 IPC. Extortion is punishable with imprisonment or fine or both, up to 3 years.

**Authority:** Sections 378, 383, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (indiankanoon.org).

**Proposition:** Theft becomes robbery when, in the course of committing theft or carrying away stolen property, the offender causes or attempts to cause death, hurt, wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death/hurt/restraint.

**Authority:** Section 390, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (indiankanoon.org).

**Proposition:** Extortion becomes robbery when the offender is in presence of the person put in fear and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, hurt, or wrongful restraint, thereby inducing delivery.

**Authority:** Section 390, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (indiankanoon.org).

---

## CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

### Bail

**Proposition:** The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at trial; it is neither punitive nor preventative in nature.

**Authority:** Section 436–439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (indiankanoon.org).

### Anticipatory Bail

**Proposition:** Anticipatory bail is bail granted in anticipation of arrest; it becomes effective at the moment of arrest. It differs from ordinary bail, which is granted after arrest and constitutes release from police custody.

**Authority:** Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 1 SCC 1632 (AIR 1980 SC 1632, 1980 SCR (3) 383)
- Landmark Supreme Court decision establishing the scope and conditions for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438, CrPC.
- Source: indiankanoon.org

**Proposition:** Considerations for granting or rejecting anticipatory bail include: nature and seriousness of charges, context of events, reasonable possibility of absence at trial, and apprehension of witness tampering.

**Authority:** Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) (indiankanoon.org).

---

## INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

### Burden of Proof

**Proposition:** The party who would fail if no evidence were given on either side bears the burden of proof.

**Authority:** Section 102, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (indiankanoon.org).

**Proposition:** Burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless law provides otherwise.

**Authority:** Section 103, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (indiankanoon.org).

**Proposition:** When a person is accused of an offence, the burden of proving circumstances bringing the case within General Exceptions (IPC) or special exceptions lies on the accused; the court presumes their absence.

**Authority:** Section 105, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (indiankanoon.org).

### Hearsay Evidence

**Proposition:** General rule: hearsay evidence is not admissible; exceptions exist under Section 32 (dying declaration, res gestae, etc.) and Section 6 (admissions/confessions).

**Authority:** Sections 6, 32, 60, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (indiankanoon.org).

**Proposition:** Oral evidence must be direct: evidence of a fact that could be seen must come from a witness who saw it; evidence of a fact that could be heard must come from a witness who heard it.

**Authority:** Section 60, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (indiankanoon.org).

---

## LAW OF TORTS

### Negligence

**Proposition:** Negligence is carelessness; it can be an independent tort or a mode of committing other torts. The law requires negligence or wrongful intent as a condition of liability depending on the tort.

**Authority:** Negligence principles via Indian Kanoon case law (indiankanoon.org).

### Vicarious Liability

**Proposition:** One person may be vicariously liable for the tort of another; a master is jointly and severally liable for any tort committed by his servant in the course of employment.

**Authority:** Section 338–342, Indian Contract Act, 1872 (master-servant principles via indiankanoon.org).

**Proposition:** It is settled that a master is answerable for every wrong of his servant committed in the course of service, though no express command is proved and the act may not benefit the master. This applies even when the particular act is not authorized, so long as it is done in the course of authorized employment.

**Authority:** State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati & Another (1962) AIR 933 SC, 1962 SCR (3) 436
- Landmark post-Independence judgment establishing that the State is vicariously liable for negligence of its officials in non-sovereign functions.
- Source: indiankanoon.org

**Proposition:** State liability for negligent acts of its servants is vicarious in nature when the act is not connected with the exercise of sovereign powers.

**Authority:** State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati & Another (1962) (indiankanoon.org).

---

## SUBJECT-TO-VERIFY NOTES

All case citations and statutory references above are sourced from Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org), a free-access legal database. Before deployment in study materials:

1. Cross-reference each citation against official law reporters (All India Reporter, Supreme Court Reports, National Law Journal, etc.).
2. Verify that cases remain good law (not overruled or distinguished).
3. For the BNS/BNSS/BSA 2023 transition (criminal law codes): confirm that the exam still tests IPC/CrPC/IEA or the new codes, per official 2025/2026 notification.

---

**Source Attribution:** Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org) — free-access legal database of Indian court judgments and statutes.