Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Live Law brings to you the 10 most important MCQs based on recent Supreme Court Judgments. Here are the MCQs:Q 1. During the pendency of the suit concerning the suit property filed by the Respondent, an agreement to sell was knowingly entered by the Appellant with the Respondent's father making an advance payment. The Suit was decreed in favor of the Respondents, however, the Appellant claimed protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("TPA") stating that his rights over the suit property must be protected as part of part-performance of the contract. Find out the most appropriate option.A. Yes, Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act provides protection to a transferee who knowingly enters into an agreement during pending litigation, regardless of the decree holders' rights.B. No, Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be invoked by a transferee who enters into an agreement during pending litigation, especially when the transferee is aware of the litigation.C. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act can be invoked by a transferee to obstruct the claims of decree holders, even if the transferee entered into the agreement during pending litigation.D. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act allows a transferee to override the rights of decree holders if the transferee has paid an advance amount for the property.Answer: Option (B)Case Title: RAJU NAIDU VERSUS CHENMOUGA SUNDRA & ORS, Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 331Explanation: The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”), for a person possessing a property under part performance of a contract, is not available to a party who knowingly entered into the agreement despite being aware of pending litigation. The Court held that Section 53A TPA cannot be invoked by a transferee to obstruct or resist the claims of decree holders who have legally acquired rights over the suit property. It emphasized that a transferee who enters into a sale agreement during pending litigation, despite lacking a valid claim, cannot use this provision to override the decree holders' rights.S.53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation : Supreme CourtQ 2. Whether a magistrate can direct a registration of FIR under Section 156(3) of CrPC even if the informant/complainant didn't exhaust the remedies available under Clauses (1) and (3) of Section 154 of CrPC. Find out the most appropriate option.A. A complainant can directly approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC without first filing a complaint with the police under Section 154(1) CrPC.B. A Magistrate can direct the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC even if the complainant has not approached the police under Section 154(1) CrPC.C. A complainant must first exhaust remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC before approaching a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.D. A complainant is not required to file any written complaint with the police before approaching a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.Answer: Option (C)Case Title: Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. v. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 329Explanation: The Supreme Court has reiterated that before a complainant can seek a Magistrate's direction under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to register an FIR and investigate a cognizable offence, they must first exhaust the remedies under Sections 154(1) [Registration of FIR] and 154(3) [Complaint To SP] of the CrPC.Magistrate Can't Direct FIR Registration Under S.156(3) CrPC If Complainant Didn't Approach Police Before u/s 154(1) & 154(3) : Supreme CourtQ 3. In a civil suit, an injunction restrained the defendant from alienating the suit property. Despite this, the defendant sold portions of it (2007–2011). The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for willful disobedience. Later, the injunction was dismissed. Can the defendant be held liable for violating the order while it was in force?A. The defendant cannot be held liable for violating the injunction order because the original suit was ultimately dismissed. B. The defendant remains liable for violating the injunction order while it was in force, even if the original suit was subsequently dismissed. C. The defendant is only liable if the plaintiff can prove that the violation caused irreparable harm, regardless of the dismissal of the suit. D. The defendant is absolved of liability because the Trial Court found the property description ambiguous.Answer: Option (B)Case Title: SMT LAVANYA C & ANR VERSUS VITTAL GURUDAS PAI SINCE DESEASED BY LRS. & ORS., Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 290Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that the subsequent setting aside of an injunction order would not preclude the courts from holding the party guilty of disobedience of the committed during the pendency of the order. The Court emphasized that...

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

Tags