Kerala Judiciary — Prelims 2019
Which of the following statements relating to the definition of “decree” in 8.2(2) CPC are untrue?
- aDecree means a formal expression of an adjudication conclusively determining the rights of the parties.
- bIt shall be deemed to include the rejection of a complaint.
- cIt shall be deemed to include the determination of any question within 8.47 CPC.
- dIt shall be deemed to include the determination of any question within 8.144 CPC.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
S.2(2) CPC deems a decree to include rejection of a 'plaint' (O.VII R.11), not rejection of a 'complaint'. Hence (b) is the untrue statement; the question asks which is untrue.
Which provision deals with the situation in which a court can direct to take off the plaintiff with costs to be paid by the pleader to the defendant?
- aO.IX R.9 CPC
- bO.XXXII R.2 CPC
- cS.35A CPC
- dO.VII R.11 CPC
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
Under O.XXXII R.2 CPC, where a suit is instituted on behalf of a minor without a next friend, the court can order the plaint to be taken off the file with costs to be paid by the pleader or other person who presented it.
Which of the following is not a condition for removal of the next friend of a minor?
- aWhere the next friend is found to be not a relative of the minor plaintiff.
- bWhere the interest of the next friend is adverse to that of the minor.
- cWhere the next friend is so connected with the defendant whose interest is adverse to that of the minor.
- dWhere the next friend ceases to reside within India.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
O.XXXII R.9 CPC allows removal of a next friend whose interest is adverse to the minor, who is connected with an adverse defendant, or who ceases to reside in India. Merely not being a relative of the minor (a) is not a ground for removal.
Which of the following is not a condition for withdrawal of permission to sue as an indigent person?
- aIf the indigent person is guilty of vexatious or improper conduct in the course of the suit.
- bIf it appears that his means are such that he ought not to continue to sue as an indigent person.
- cIf he has entered into any agreement with reference to the subject matter of the suit under which any other person has obtained an interest.
- dIf he refuses to take the help of a pleader assigned by the court.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
O.XXXIII R.9 CPC lists grounds for revoking indigent-person permission: vexatious/improper conduct, sufficient means, or assigning interest in subject matter. Refusing a pleader's help (d) is not a listed ground.
All questions between the parties to a suit in which the decree was passed or their representatives and relating to them shall be determined by the court executing the decree..
- aexecution of the decree
- bsatisfaction of the decree
- cdischarge of the decree
- dexecution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
S.47 CPC: all questions between parties to the suit relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree are to be determined by the executing court, not by separate suit.
Which of the following is not a reason for issuing an order of arrest before judgement under O.XXXVI11 R.1 CPC?
- aThe defendant has absconded or left the local limits of jurisdiction of the court.
- bThe defendant is about to abscond or leave the local limits of jurisdiction of the court.
- cWhen the defendant has committed waste in the plaintiff's scheduled property.
- dWhen the defendant has disposed of or removed from the local limits of jurisdiction of the court his property.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
O.XXXVIII R.1 CPC permits arrest before judgment where the defendant has absconded, is about to abscond, or has disposed of/removed property to obstruct execution. Committing waste in scheduled property (c) is a ground for attachment/injunction, not arrest before judgment.
Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within days from the date on which the injunction was granted?
- a30
- b60
- c45
- d90
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
Proviso to O.XXXIX R.3 CPC requires that where an injunction is granted ex parte (without notice), the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within 30 days from the date the injunction was granted.
Which among the following is not a requirement under O.XXI Rule 66 CPC in a proclamation for sale?
- aDetails of the title documents, including the number, year and name of the SRO.
- bThe revenue assessed upon the estate to be sold.
- cAny encumbrance to which the property is liable.
- dAmount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
O.XXI R.66(2) CPC requires the sale proclamation to specify the property, revenue assessed, encumbrances, and the amount for recovery. It does not require details of title documents/SRO number and year (a).
General rule regarding production of original documents under O.XIII R.1 CPC, if they are not produced along with the pleadings, is that
- athe parties or their pleader shall produce them on or before adducing evidence in the case.
- bthe parties or their leader shall produce them on or before the settlement of issues.
- cthe parties or their pleader shall produce them at the time of final hearing.
- dthe parties or their pleader shall produce them before reserving the case for judgement.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
O.XIII R.1 CPC (pre-2002 / Kerala-applicable form) requires the parties or their pleaders to produce documentary evidence on or before the settlement of issues, if not produced with the pleadings.
Death of a plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate
- aif the plaintiff or defendant has a legal representative.
- bif the suit is one to vindicate a public right.
- cif the right to sue survives.
- dif the plaintiff or the defendant had assigned the property pending suit.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
Under O.XXII R.1 CPC, the death of a plaintiff or defendant does not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives.
What are the prerequisites for abandoning a suit, instituted by a minor plaintiff, under O.XXIII R.1 CPC?
- aIt can be abandoned with or without the leave of the court.
- bA simple application for leave of the court is enough.
- cAn application for leave shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend stating the reasons for abandonment.
- dAn application for leave shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend and also by a certificate of the pleader to the effect that the abandonment proposed is, in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
O.XXXII R.7 read with O.XXIII R.1 CPC: a minor's suit cannot be abandoned/withdrawn without leave of the court, and the application for leave must be accompanied by the next friend's affidavit and the pleader's certificate that the abandonment is for the minor's benefit.
Which of the following persons is not a “tenant” within the definition of 8.2(6) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965?
- aA person by whom rent is payable for a building.
- bA person on whose account rent is payable for a building.
- cA person placed in occupation of a building by its tenant.
- dHeirs of a deceased tenant.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
Under the original S.2(6) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, 'tenant' included a person by/on whose account rent is payable and a person placed in occupation by the tenant, but did not generically include 'heirs of a deceased tenant' (the original clause covered only surviving spouse/son/daughter living with the tenant). Hence (d) is not within S.2(6).
Choose the wrong option given below: Nothing contained in 8.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 shall apply to a tenant whose landlord is
- athe State Government
- bthe public authorities notified under the Act
- cthe Central Government
- da trust coming under the purview of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
S.11 of the Kerala Rent Act exempts tenants whose landlord is the Government (State/Central) or notified public authorities. A trust under the Indian Trusts Act (d) is not within the exemption, so it is the wrong option.
The principles of constructive res Judicata in S.11 CPC are applicable to the proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. This statement is
- atrue
- bpartly true insofar as S.11(3) of the Act is concerned.
- cfalse
- dpartly true to the extent of S.11 (8) of the Act is concerned.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
The general principles of res judicata, including constructive res judicata under S.11 CPC, apply to proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965; the statement is true.
On the death of an original tenant under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 his legal heirs succeeded to the tenancy as
- ajoint tenants
- btenants-in-common
- cco-tenants
- dco-owners
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
On the death of a statutory/original tenant under the Kerala Rent Act, the legal heirs succeed to the tenancy as tenants-in-common (not as joint tenants), each holding a divisible share.
Which of the following powers the Rent Control Court does not possess?
- aDiscovery and inspection
- bEnforcing the attendance of witnesses
- cReception of evidence taken on affidavit
- dIssue an order of temporary injunction
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
The Rent Control Court has the powers of a civil court for discovery/inspection, enforcing attendance of witnesses, and reception of evidence on affidavit, but it does not possess power to issue an order of temporary injunction (d).
What is the remedy of a respondent against whom execution of an order of eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 has been ordered by a Munsiffs Court?
- aThe respondent can file an appeal.
- bThe respondent can file a revision to the court to which the appeals ordinarily lie against the decisions of the Munsiff.
- cThe respondent can file a writ petition before the High Court.
- dThe respondent can file an application under 8.47 CPC before the executing court itself.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
Where a Munsiff's Court (as executing court) orders execution of an eviction order under the Kerala Rent Act, the remedy of the aggrieved respondent is a revision to the court to which appeals against the Munsiff's decisions ordinarily lie.
What are the provisions in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 requiring a notice before initiation of an eviction proceedings?
- a8.11(2) and 8.11(3)
- b8.11(2) and 8.11(8)
- c8.11(2) and 8.11(4)(i)
- d8.11(4)(i) and 8.11(8)
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
S.11(2) (eviction for arrears of rent, after notice) and S.11(4)(i) (eviction for sub-letting, after notice) of the Kerala Rent Act require notice before initiating eviction proceedings.
When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtain the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make
- aa proposal
- ba promise
- can offer
- da consent
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
S.2(a) of the Indian Contract Act 1872: when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything with a view to obtaining the other's assent, he is said to make a 'proposal'.
An agreement which is enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties thereto, but not at the option of the other or others, is a
- avoid contract
- bvoidable contract
- cunilateral contract
- drescinded contract
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
S.2(i) of the Indian Contract Act 1872 defines a voidable contract as an agreement enforceable by law at the option of one or more parties but not at the option of the others.
Which is the wrong answer: Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by
- acoercion
- bundue influence
- cfraud
- dmisunderstanding
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
S.14 of the Indian Contract Act: consent is free when not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. 'Misunderstanding' (d) is not a listed vitiating factor, so it is the wrong answer.
“A” and “B” jointly owe ^1,00,000/- to 'O'. “A” alone pays the amount to “C” and “B”, not knowing this fact, pays ,00,000/- over again to “C”. Is “C” bound to repay the amount, if so, to whom?
- a“C” is not bound to repay the amount to anyone.
- b“C” is bound to repay T50,000/- each to “A” and “B”.
- c“C” is bound to repay the amount to “B”.
- d“C” is bound to repay the amount to “A”.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
S.69/illustration principle (and S.43-type liability): since A had already discharged the joint debt, B's second payment to C was made under a mistake; C is bound to repay it. As the illustration to the Contract Act provides, C must repay the amount to A (the joint debtor who actually paid).
“A” contracts to repair “B's house in a particular manner and receives payment in advance. “A” repairs the house, but not according to the contract. What is “B's right?
- a“B” is entitled to recover from “A” the costs of making the repairs conform to the contract.
- b“B” is not entitled to recover any amount as “A” has affected repairs to the house.
- c“B” is entitled to recover the entire money paid to “A” in advance with interest as he made a breach of the contract.
- d“B” is entitled to recover the entire money from “A” without any interest.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
S.73 Contract Act (illustration): where A repairs B's house but not according to the contract, B is entitled to recover from A the cost of making the repairs conform to the contract.
“A” contracts with “B” to pay ^1,000/-if he fails to pay “B” Rs. 500/ -on a given date. “A” fails to pay “B” Rs. 500/- on that day. What is the remedy of “B”?
- a“B” is entitled to recover Rs. 500/- only from “A”.
- b“B” is entitled to recover any amount as compensation from “A”.
- c“B” is entitled to recover from “A” such compensation not exceeding ,000/- as the court considers reasonable.
- d“B” is entitled to recover from “A” Rs. 500/- with reasonable rate of interest.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
S.74 Contract Act: where a sum is named in the contract as payable on breach (penalty/liquidated amount), the aggrieved party is entitled to reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named (Rs.1,000), as the court considers reasonable.
In a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property, the plaintiff acquires title to the property when
- athe sale consideration is paid
- bthe suit is filed
- cthe sale deed is executed
- dthe decree is passed
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property, a decree does not by itself transfer title; the plaintiff acquires title only when the sale deed is executed (and registered) pursuant to the decree.
Pick up the wrong answer: When the defendant invades or threaten to invade the plaintiffs right or enjoyment of property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, viz.,
- aWhere the defendant is a trustee of the property for the plaintiff
- bWhere the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief
- cWhen the defendant, who is a co-owner, attempts to trespass into the co-ownership property
- dWhen the injunction is necessary to prevent multiplicity of judicial proceedings
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
Under S.38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, perpetual injunction may be granted where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff, where money compensation is inadequate, or to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. A co-owner attempting to enter co-ownership property is not a listed ground, so (c) is the wrong answer the question seeks.
State whether true or false: A minor may draw, endorse, deliver and negotiate a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque so as to bind all parties except himself.
- aTrue
- bFalse
- cPartly true, a minor can only draw such a negotiable instrument and it binds all parties including himself.
- dPartly true, a minor may negotiate such instruments binding all parties including himself.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
S.26 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 expressly provides that a minor may draw, endorse, deliver and negotiate a negotiable instrument so as to bind all parties except himself. The statement is therefore True.
Where a cheque is crossed generally, the banker on whom it is drawn shall not pay it otherwise than to
- aa banker
- ba banker to whom it is crossed
- can agent of the banker
- dthe drawee
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
Under S.126 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where a cheque is crossed generally the banker on whom it is drawn shall not pay it otherwise than to a banker.
Under 8.3 of the TP Act, 1882, “instrument” means
- aa non-testamentary instrument
- ba testamentary instrument
- ca sale deed
- da gift deed
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
Under S.3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, 'instrument' means a non-testamentary instrument.
“A” contracts to sell a property to “B”. While the contract is still in force, he sells the property to “C” who has notice of the contract. Can “B” enforce the contract against anyone? What is the extent of its enforceability?
- a“B” cannot enforce the contract against “A”.
- b“B” can enforce the contract only against “A”, but to the full extent.
- c“B” may enforce the contract against “C” only to a limited extent.
- d“B” may enforce the contract against “C” to the same extent as against “A”.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
Under S.19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, specific performance may be enforced against a subsequent transferee who took with notice of the prior contract. Since C had notice, B may enforce the contract against C to the same extent as against A.
Which of the following is a wrong statement:
- aThe seller is bound to disclose to the buyer any material defect in the property or in the seller's title thereto of which the seller is and the buyer is not aware and which the buyer could not with ordinary care discover.
- bThe settler is bound to produce to the buyer on his request for examination all documents of title relating to the property which are in the seller's possession or power.
- cThe seller is bound to answer to his best of information all relevant questions put by the buyer.
- dThe seller is bound to handover possession of the property in all cases at the time of executing the contract for sale.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
Under S.55(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the seller is bound to give possession to the buyer at the time of completion (on payment of price/execution of conveyance), not at the time of executing the contract for sale. Statement (d) is wrong.
A forfeiture of lease under 8.111(g) of TP Act, 1882 may be waived by
- aacceptance of rent which has become due since the forfeiture
- bdistress for such rent
- can act on the part of the lessor showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting
- dAll the above
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
Under S.112 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a forfeiture under S.111(g) is waived by acceptance of rent which has become due since the forfeiture, by distress for such rent, or by any act of the lessor showing intention to treat the lease as subsisting. Hence all of the above.
What is the effect of material alteration of a negotiable instrument?
- aIt is voidable as against anyone who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration
- bIt is void as against anyone who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto
- cIt is void against all persons
- dIt is voidable against all persons
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
Under S.87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a material alteration renders the instrument void as against anyone who was a party at the time of making the alteration and did not consent thereto.
Choose the most appropriate answer: No suit under 8.6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 shall be brought against
- athe Central Government
- bthe State Government
- cthe Government
- dthe statutory corporations
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
Under S.6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (suit for possession on dispossession), no suit shall be brought against the Government. The most appropriate answer is 'the Government'.
“A” , without authority, buys goods for “B”. Afterwards “B” sells them to “C” on his own account. “B's conduct implies
- aa ratification of the purchase made for him by “A”
- ba consent given to “A” to make the purchase
- can agreement authorising “A” to purchase the goods for “B”
- dan unauthorised act on the part of “A”
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
Illustration to S.197 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872: where A without authority buys goods for B and B afterwards sells them on his own account, B's conduct implies a ratification of the purchase made for him by A.
Every transfer of immovable property made, with an intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the transferor shall be, at the option of any creditor so defeated or delayed.
- avoid
- bNonest
- cvoidable
- dinvalid
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
Under S.53(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, every transfer of immovable property made with intent to defeat or delay creditors is voidable at the option of any creditor so defeated or delayed.
A relief claimed in the plaint was not expressly granted by the decree; the relief is deemed to have been
- aimpliedly granted
- bgranted
- crefused
- ddid not arise for consideration
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
Under O.II R.2 / O.VIII and settled CPC principle (and O.XX), where a relief claimed in the plaint is not expressly granted by the decree, it is deemed to have been refused.
Right to appeal is a
- astatutory right
- binherent right
- cnatural right
- dfundamental right
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
Right of appeal is a creature of statute; it is a statutory right and not an inherent or natural right (settled law, e.g., Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry).
S.62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with
- acontract of indemnity
- bnovation
- cjoint liability
- dcontract of guarantee
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
S.62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 deals with the effect of novation, rescission and alteration of contract.
An application was filed by the plaintiff to withdraw a suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The Munsiff refused permission and dismissed the suit. The order is
- alegal
- bimproper
- cproper
- dillegal
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
Under O.XXIII R.1 CPC, granting leave to withdraw with liberty to file a fresh suit is discretionary; the court may refuse permission and the suit then stands dismissed. The order refusing permission and dismissing the suit is proper.
A Magistrate dismisses a complaint after inquiry holding that the identity of the accused is not disclosed in the complaint. The order is
- acorrect, since it is mandatory to describe the identity of the accused in the complaint
- bcorrect, even if the identity is disclosed in the inquiry as it is not revealed from the complaint
- cincorrect, since it is not mandatory to describe the identity of the accused in the complaint
- dincorrect, since the proper course for the Magistrate was to reject the complaint
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
There is no requirement under the CrPC that the identity of the accused be disclosed in a complaint (a complaint can even be against unknown persons); dismissing on that ground is incorrect since it is not mandatory to describe the accused's identity in the complaint.
A person went to a police station and gave a statement that he killed his wife. On the basis of that statement a crime for offence punishable under 8.302 IPC was registered. That statement is
- aadmissible in evidence as a confession since gave before registration of the crime
- badmissible in evidence as an admission of the accused regarding death of his wife
- cnot admissible in evidence since barred under 8.25 of the Evidence Act
- dnot admissible in view of bar under 8.162 Cr.PC.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
A confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under S.25 of the Evidence Act. The statement made at the police station confessing the killing is barred under S.25.
A complaint alleging offence punishable under 8.500 IPC was sent by the Magistrate under 8.156(3) Cr.PC. for investigation. That order is
- airregular, since police can investigate only if a complaint is filed directly before Police
- bincorrect, since Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence under 8.500 IPC on the basis of a final report filed by police
- ccorrect, since Magistrate has every power to order investigation with respect to any offence
- dcorrect, because only if a Magistrate orders, police get jurisdiction to investigate into an offence under 8.500 IPC 15
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
Defamation under S.500 IPC is non-cognizable and cognizance can be taken only on a complaint by the person aggrieved (S.199 CrPC); a Magistrate cannot take cognizance on a police final report. Ordering S.156(3) investigation here is incorrect for that reason.
Which among the following statements is incorrect ? A Magistrate may discharge the accused after
- aconsidering the police report and documents thereto
- bconsidering the police report and documents thereto and hearing the accused
- cconsidering the police report and documents thereto and documents produced by the accused
- dconsidering the police report and documents thereto and examining the accused
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
Under S.239 CrPC, the Magistrate discharges after considering the police report and documents under S.173 and after giving the accused an opportunity of being heard; there is no 'examining the accused' requirement at the discharge stage. Statement (d) is incorrect.
In a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report the complainant and all the witnesses cited were examined and all the documents were considered before issuing summons to the accused. On appearance of the accused which among the following shall be the proper procedure?
- aMagistrate may decide to discharge or frame charge on the basis of the statements and documents aforementioned
- bMagistrate may decide to convict or acquit the accused on the basis of the statements and documents aforementioned
- cStatements of the witnesses recorded under S.202 Or.PC after their cross examination can be used as evidence at the trial
- dMagistrate shall record evidence on the side of the prosecution before deciding to discharge or frame charge
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
In a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, S.244 CrPC requires the Magistrate to record prosecution evidence after the accused appears, and only then (S.245) decide whether to discharge or frame charge. The pre-summons inquiry evidence cannot substitute; evidence must be recorded on the prosecution side first.
A Magistrate convicts an accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a term of one month for stealing an article worth ,000/- under S.379 IPC. The judgement will be correct if…
- athe conviction is on the basis of plea of guilt
- bthe accused is below the age of 18 years
- cthe trial is a summary trial
- dthe accused is a woman
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
Under S.262/263 CrPC read with S.260, in a summary trial no sentence of imprisonment exceeding three months can be passed; a one-month sentence is valid only if the trial is a summary trial (the question tests when such a short imprisonment is the correct course). The judgement is correct if the trial is a summary trial.
During the trial of a case the accused was found to be a person of unsound mind. Magistrate on inquiry found that the accused was incapable of making his defence. Magistrate on examining the materials on record, discharged the accused finding that no prima facie case was made out. The decision of the Magistrate is
- acorrect
- bwrong
- cwrong since the Magistrate could do so only after recording a finding that the accused became capable of making his defence
- dcorrect, only if it is done after recording evidence on the side of the prosecution
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
Under S.328/329 CrPC, even where the accused is found of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate, if on examining the record he finds no prima facie case, may discharge the accused. The decision is correct.
While a Munsiff was hearing a case the plaintiff in that case quarrelled with the defendant inside the court causing interruption to the proceedings. The Munsiff
- amay take cognizance of the offence and after hearing the offender sentence him to pay fine
- bmay forward the case to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offender
- cmay on his discretion discharge the accused, if he tenders an apology
- dAll the above are correct
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
An offence under S.228 IPC (intentional insult/interruption to a public servant in judicial proceeding) committed in the view of a civil court is dealt with under S.345 CrPC, but quarrelling/assault is not one the court can summarily punish under S.345; the proper course is to forward the offender to a Magistrate having jurisdiction (S.346 CrPC).
A person committed theft at different places in Ernakulam on 10.01.2018, 01.10.2018 and 25.12.2018. He
- amay be charged together with one composite charge and tried at one trial
- bshall be charged for each offence and tried separately on each such charge
- cmay be charged separately for each offence and tried at one trial
- dNone of the above is correct
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
Under S.219 CrPC, a person may be charged with and tried at one trial for not more than three offences of the same kind committed within twelve months. The three thefts (10.01.2018 to 25.12.2018) fall within twelve months, so he may be charged separately for each offence and tried at one trial.
Which among the following statements is incorrect
- aAny number of persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of same transaction can be tried together
- bDifferent persons accused of offences of theft of an article, receiving of it and concealing of it can be tried together
- call persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction can be tried together
- dall persons accused of criminal misappropriation committed by them jointly during a period of 24 months can be tried together
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
Under S.219 CrPC the twelve-month rule applies to offences of the same kind, not 24 months; and S.223 allows joint trial of persons in the situations in (a), (b) and (c). Statement (d) referring to a 24-month period for joint trial of criminal misappropriation is incorrect.
Prosecution wants to admit a report issued by the Assistant Director of the State Forensic Science Laboratory in evidence without examining its author. The accused objects to it. The report
- acan be admitted in evidence without examining its author as a witness in court
- bcan be admitted in evidence only if its author is examined as a witness in court
- ccannot be admitted in evidence even if its author is examined
- dcannot be admitted unless Director of the State Forensic Science Laboratory is examined as a witness in Court
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
Under S.293(4)(e) CrPC, the Assistant Director of a State Forensic Science Laboratory is a notified Government scientific expert, so his report may be used in evidence under S.293(1) without examining its author; the court may summon him only if it thinks fit.
A person was tried and convicted for offences punishable under 8s.279 and 338 IPC. Later the injured died as a result of the injuries sustained in the incident. Can the accused be tried for an offence punishable under S.304A IPC ?
- acannot be tried since it amounts to double jeopardy
- bcan be tried and it does not amount to double jeopardy
- ccan be tried only if the State Government consents
- dcan be tried only if the accused was acquitted in the first trial
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
Under S.300(2)/proviso CrPC, where a consequence (death) ensues after the earlier trial, a fresh trial for the resultant offence (S.304A) is not barred; this is the principle of S.300 read with Art.20(2), so it does not amount to double jeopardy.
During investigation of a case involving offence punishable under S.302 IPC who is competent to tender pardon to an accused ?
- aSessions Judge
- bSub Divisional Magistrate
- cJudicial First Class Magistrate
- dChief Judicial Magistrate
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
Under S.306 CrPC, at the investigation stage in an offence triable exclusively by Sessions (S.302 IPC), pardon can be tendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate; among the options the CJM is the competent authority.
During examination-in-chief a prosecution witness stated that it was he and not the accused who committed the offence under trial. What shall then the Magistrate do?
- ashall implead that witness and try him together with the accused
- bproceed with the trial of the accused and decide it
- cstop the proceedings
- dinitiate a separate case against the witness and try him separately for that offence
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
A witness's self-incriminating statement during examination-in-chief is merely evidence to be appreciated; the Magistrate proceeds with and decides the trial of the accused before him, and cannot implead or stop proceedings on that basis.
A Magistrate convicted and accused. Which among the following is legally incorrect ?
- asentences him to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine
- bsentences him to undergo imprisonment and to pay compensation
- csentences him to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine and compensation
- dsentences him to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine and to pay a part of fine as compensation
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
Compensation under S.357(1) CrPC is payable only out of a fine imposed; a sentence of imprisonment plus a standalone order to 'pay compensation' (without any fine) is legally impermissible, making option (b) the incorrect course.
A complaint alleging an offence exclusively triable by a court of session is filed before a Magistrate. As to the procedure on such a complaint , which of the following statements is incorrect ?
- aOrders investigation under S. 156(3) Cr.P.C.
- bOrders investigation under 8.202 Cr.P.C.
- cDecides to hold inquiry by the Magistrate himself
- dAfter examination on oath of the complainant calls upon him to produce all his witnesses
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
On a complaint of an offence exclusively triable by Sessions, S.202(1) proviso CrPC bars an order of investigation; the Magistrate must himself inquire or hold inquiry/direct investigation under S.202, and under S.202(2) must examine all witnesses on oath. Hence ordering investigation under S.156(3) is the incorrect/impermissible course.
A person accused of an offence punishable under 8.302 I PC has been in judicial custody. Identify the correct statement ?
- aThe Magistrate has discretion to grant bail at any time during the period of judicial custody
- bThe Magistrate shall grant bail if final report is not filed within 90 days of the judicial custody
- cThe Magistrate shall grant bail if final report is not filed within 60 days of judicial custody
- dHigh Court alone has jurisdiction to grant bail to the accused.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
For an offence under S.302 IPC (punishable with death/life), the default custody period under S.167(2)(a)(i) is 90 days, so there is no automatic default bail at 60 days; the Magistrate has discretion to grant bail at any time during judicial custody, subject to S.437. Option (a) is the correct statement.
In a case instituted otherwise than on a police report charge is not framed. On a date of its hearing the complainant is absent. The Magistrate may then discharge the accused if
- athe offence is lawfully compoundable or non-cognizable
- bthe offence is bailable
- cthe offence is lawfully compoundable and non- cognizable
- dthe offence is bailable and lawfully compoundable
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
Under S.249 CrPC, in a complaint case where charge is not framed and the complainant is absent, the Magistrate may discharge the accused if the offence is compoundable or non-cognizable.
Identify the incorrect statement. Period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offence is
- asix months if the offence is punishable with fine only
- bone year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year
- cTwo years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding two years.
- dThree years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
S.468 CrPC limitation is six months (fine only), one year (imprisonment up to one year) and three years (imprisonment over one year up to three years); there is no 'two years' category, so statement (c) is wrong and (d) is the correct statement. The question asks for the incorrect statement, which is (c).
Complainant is a Minister in the State Cabinet. Offence alleged is under S.500 IPO. The Sessions Court is trying the offence. The Court shall follow the procedure for
- aSummary trial
- bTrial of summons cases
- cSessions trial
- dTrial of warrant cases
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
Defamation (S.500 IPC, max 2 years) is a warrant offence; even when tried by a Court of Session (e.g., complainant being a public servant under S.199(2)), it follows the warrant-case procedure as provided in S.237 CrPC.
“A” and “B” together decided to kill “X”. In pursuance thereof “B” along with “C” committed murder of “X”. On the above facts which among the following statements is correct ?
- a“A” committed an offence punishable under S.302 read with S.34 IPC
- b“A” committed an offence punishable under S.302 read with S.149 IPO
- c“A” did not commit any offence
- d“A” committed an offence of conspiracy punishable under S.120B IPC
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
A and B shared a common intention to kill X; B (with C) carried it out in furtherance of that common intention, so A is liable under S.302 read with S.34 IPC. S.149 requires an unlawful assembly of five or more, which is absent.
One of the following is not a punishment provided under the Indian Penal Code. Identify ?
- aImprisonment for life
- bForfeiture of property
- cto pay compensation
- dto pay fine
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
S.53 IPC lists punishments: death, imprisonment for life, imprisonment, forfeiture of property and fine. 'To pay compensation' is not a punishment under S.53 IPC.
A person accused of an offence claims benefit of 8.84 IPC. Of the following, what shall not be a consideration for deciding that question ?
- aThe person was of unsound mind at the time of doing the act
- bBy reason of unsound mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, he was doing
- cBy reason of unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing that the act he was doing is either wrong or contrary to law
- dThe person is of unsound mind at the time of trial
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
S.84 IPC is judged by the state of mind at the time of doing the act; unsoundness of mind at the time of trial is irrelevant to the S.84 defence (it goes to capacity to stand trial under Ch.XXV CrPC, not the defence).
“A” beats “B” to kill “X”. In consequence thereof “B” stabs “X”. “X” recovers from the wound. If “B” is guilty of attempting to commit murder to what offence is “A” liable for ?
- aAttempt to commit murder
- bAbetment to commit murder
- cAbetment to commit attempt to commit murder
- dNone of the above
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
A instigated B to murder X; the act abetted (murder) was not committed but an attempt was, so under S.115/the abetment provisions A is guilty of abetment of the offence actually attempted, i.e., abetment to commit attempt to commit murder.
An offence under 8.294 IPC will be constituted if a person utters obscene words
- ato the annoyance of others
- bin a public place
- cin a public place and to the annoyance of others
- din a public place ignoring objection by others
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
S.294 IPC requires that the obscene act/words be done/uttered in or near a public place AND to the annoyance of others; both ingredients are essential.
At trial it is proved that the accused voluntarily inflicted the victim of an injury using a knife. No evidence is adduced to prove that the weapon used is a dangerous weapon. For what offence can the accused be convicted ?
- a8.323 IPC
- b8.324 IPC
- c8.325 IPC
- d8.326 IPC
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
S.324/326 IPC require the hurt to be caused by a dangerous weapon; absent proof that the knife is a dangerous weapon, the act of voluntarily causing hurt falls under S.323 IPC.
One of the following is not a necessary ingredient of offence of robbery;
- aTwo or more persons conjointly had committed the offence
- bin committing extortion the person is put in fear
- ccommission of either theft or extortion
- din carrying away the stolen property, voluntarily caused hurt
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
Robbery (S.390 IPC) is theft or extortion aggravated by causing/attempting death, hurt or wrongful restraint or fear thereof; the requirement of 'two or more persons conjointly' is an ingredient of dacoity (S.391), not robbery.
A person is entrusted with a property and he dishonestly converts that property for his own use. The offence thereby constituted is
- aExtortion
- bCriminal Breach of trust
- cCriminal misappropriation
- dCheating
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
Dishonest misappropriation/conversion of property entrusted to a person is criminal breach of trust under S.405 IPC; entrustment distinguishes it from criminal misappropriation.
A person sneaks into a house to steal. The offence thereby he committed is
- aLurking house trespass
- bHouse trespass
- cHouse breaking
- dCriminal trespass
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
Merely entering a house with intent to commit an offence (theft) is criminal trespass under S.441 IPC (house-trespass being its species). On the bare facts stated ('sneaks into a house to steal'), absent elements of lurking, breaking or built-up dwelling, criminal trespass is the basic offence committed.
Which among the following is a necessary part of 'forgery' under 8.463 IPC, but an unnecessary part of making a false document under 8.464 IPC ?
- aMakes a document
- bDishonest intention
- cintention of causing it to believe that the document was made by authority of a person, but in fact not under the authority of that person
- dIntention to cause damage or injury to a person or public
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
Making a false document under S.464 IPC does not require an intention to cause belief that it was made by another's authority; that element is essential to forgery under S.463. So option (c) is necessary for forgery but unnecessary for S.464.
At the trial of an offence punishable under 8.324 IPC which among the following is not a fact in issue
- aAccused caused hurt to the injured
- bAccused and the injured were in inimical terms
- cHurt was caused not on grave and sudden provocation
- dA dangerous weapon was used to cause hurt
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
Facts in issue in a S.324 IPC trial are the ingredients: causing hurt, by a dangerous weapon, voluntarily/without grave and sudden provocation. That the accused and injured were on inimical terms is only a relevant fact (motive), not a fact in issue.
The prosecution has proved that based on a statement of the accused the weapon of offence was recovered. One of the following facts need not necessarily be proved for the recovery relevant under 8.27 of the Evidence Act. Identify ?
- aThe accused was in police custody
- bThe police officer shall depose the statement of the accused in Court
- cAt least one independent witness shall state in Court about the recovery
- dInformation contained in the statement of the accused lead to discovery of the fact
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
For S.27 Evidence Act discovery, the essentials are accused in police custody, information leading to discovery of a fact, and proof of that information; an independent witness to the recovery, though desirable, is not a legal necessity.
A confession recorded by whom is barred under 8.25 of the Evidence Act ?
- aAn officer in charge of a police station
- bA Customs Officer
- cA Forest Officer
- dA Drug Inspector
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
S.25 Evidence Act bars confessions made to a police officer (officer in charge of a police station/police officer); Customs, Forest and Drug officers are generally not 'police officers' for this bar.
A birth certificate is relevant under 8.35 of the Indian Evidence Act because it is
- amade by a public servant
- bpart of a register regularly kept in the ordinary course of business
- ca public document
- dmade by a public servant in performance of his duty under a special law
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
S.35 Evidence Act makes an entry (e.g., birth certificate) relevant when made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty/in performance of a duty enjoined by law; option (d) captures this requirement.
Signature of the Principal of a college is to be proved. He is not available. A teacher worked along with him deposed in court identifying his signature. Opinion of the teacher is relevant under the Evidence Act.
- a45
- b46
- c47
- d73
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
When a person who is acquainted with another's handwriting (a co-worker who has seen the Principal sign) gives an opinion on the signature, that opinion is relevant under S.47 of the Evidence Act.
A gift deed is produced in Court. Its execution can be proved even if one of the attesting witnesses, is not called, provided
- ait is registered
- bit is registered and its execution is denied
- cit is registered and its execution is admitted
- dit is not registered, but its execution is admitted
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
Under the proviso to S.68 of the Evidence Act, a registered document (other than a will) need not be proved by calling an attesting witness unless its execution is specifically denied; so if registered and execution is admitted, attesting witness need not be called.
If an agreement is produced in Court and proved, which among the following oral evidence cannot be permitted
- aTo prove that the agreement is vitiated by fraud
- bTo prove that one of the terms in the agreement was incorrect
- cTo prove that there was a separate oral agreement between the parties
- dTo prove a custom which has a bearing on the terms of the agreement
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
Under S.92 of the Evidence Act, once a written contract is proved, oral evidence of a separate contemporaneous oral agreement contradicting/varying its terms is barred. Proviso (1) allows fraud, proviso (2) allows separate oral agreement only on points where the document is silent, and proviso (6) allows custom; a separate oral agreement contradicting the terms cannot be permitted.
A suit for partition is filed by the heirs of a person whose whereabouts are not known for more than 7 years. In the suit,
- aif the plaintiff proves that nothing has been heard about the person by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden to prove that he is alive is shifted to the defendants
- bif the defendants proves that nothing has been heard about the person by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden to prove that he is alive is shifted to the plaintiff
- cif the defendants proves that the person was alive within 30 year the burden to prove his whereabouts have not been known for the last 7 years is shifted to the plaintiff
- dNone of the above
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
Under S.108 read with S.107 of the Evidence Act, once the plaintiff shows the person has not been heard of for 7 years by those who would naturally have heard, the presumption of death arises and the burden of proving he is alive shifts to the party (defendants) asserting it.
A child of 11 years of age is competent to testify in a Court of Law since the child is
- aabove the age of 10 years
- bcompetent as per 8.118 of the Indian Evidence Act
- ccompetent as per 8.4 of the Oaths Act
- dfound competent by the investigating officer
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
Competency of a witness is governed by S.118 of the Evidence Act, which makes all persons competent unless prevented from understanding/answering rationally; age alone is not the test.
If a former statement of a witness is proved to be inconsistent with his statement in Court as per 8.145 of the Evidence Act
- ahis evidence shall be excluded from consideration
- bhe becomes an accomplice
- che ceases to be a witness
- dhis credit may be impeached
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
S.145 read with S.155 of the Evidence Act permits cross-examination on a previous inconsistent statement to impeach the witness's credit; the inconsistency does not exclude his evidence or make him cease to be a witness.
Ipso Jure means
- aLaw of the land
- bLaw is supreme
- cBy the law itself
- dIn the absence of law
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
'Ipso jure' is Latin for 'by the law itself' / by operation of law.
Rigour mortis means
- aPutrefaction of body
- bColour change of dead body
- cSkeletonisation of dead body
- dStiffening of muscles after death
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
Rigor mortis is the post-mortem stiffening of the muscles of the body after death.
A lover of mankind
- aPhilatelist
- bPhilanthropist
- cProphet
- dAnthropologist
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
A philanthropist is a lover of mankind / one who promotes the welfare of others.
'Make up your mind' means
- aTo make a decision
- bTo express a desire
- cTo make an admission
- dTo think about an issue
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
'Make up your mind' idiomatically means to make a decision / decide.
'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit means
- aThe practice of the Court is the Law of the Court
- bA Court has nothing to do with which is not before it
- cAn act of the Court shall prejudice no one
- dWhere there is a wrong there is a remedy
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
'Actus curiae neminem gravabit' means an act of the court shall prejudice no one.
A judge of a High Court is appointed under ..............of the Constitution of India
- aArticle 279
- bArticle 217
- cArticle 170
- dArticle 234
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
A Judge of a High Court is appointed by the President under Article 217 of the Constitution of India.
When can an ad hoc Judge be appointed in the Supreme Court of India
- awhenever the Chief Justice of India deems it appropriate
- bwhenever the President of India deems it appropriate
- cif post of a Judge remains vacant for more than three years
- dif a quorum of the Judges of the Supreme Court is not available to hold any sitting of the Court
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
Under Article 127 of the Constitution, an ad hoc Judge of the Supreme Court may be appointed when there is a lack of quorum of permanent Judges to hold or continue any session of the Court.
Right to education of all children between 6 and 14 years of age has become a fundamental right as per Article ........... of the Constitution of India.
- aArticle 21 A
- bArticle 20 A
- cArticle 23 A
- dArticle 25 A
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
Article 21A (inserted by the 86th Amendment, 2002) makes free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 a fundamental right.
Power to issue writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari could be exercised by any court other than Supreme Court of India and High Courts if
- athe Supreme Court of India empowers
- bthe President of India empowers
- cthe Parliament by law empowers
- dNone of the above
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
Under Article 32(3), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within its jurisdiction the writ powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32(2), without prejudice to the powers of the SC and High Courts.
The Ex-Officio Chairman of the Council of States is
- athe Speaker
- bthe Minister for Parliamentary Affairs
- cthe Prime Minister
- dthe Vice President of India
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
Under Article 64, the Vice-President of India is the ex-officio Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha).
A High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall have superintendence over throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction
- aDistrict Courts
- ball Courts
- call Courts and Tribunals
- dall Tribunals
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
Article 227 confers on every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
Who has not functioned as Attorney General of India ?
- aMukul Rohatgi
- bTushar Mehta
- cK.K. Venugopal
- dG. E. Vahanvati
Answer & solution
Correct answer: B
Tushar Mehta has served as Solicitor General of India, not Attorney General; Mukul Rohatgi, K.K. Venugopal and G.E. Vahanvati have all held the office of Attorney General of India.
The Chief Election Commissioner of India cannot be removed except by which process
- aResignation
- bPresidential Order
- cImpeachment
- dJudicial Decision
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
Under Article 324(5) read with the proviso, the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only in like manner and on like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court, i.e. by impeachment (address of Parliament).
The obligation under Article 22 of the Constitution of India to produce every person arrested before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours is not applicable in the case of persons
- aarrested under preventive detention laws
- barrested under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
- carrested under the Foreigners Act
- darrested for the offence of sedition
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
Article 22(3) exempts persons arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention from the protection of Article 22(1) and (2), including the 24-hour production rule.
In which decision the Supreme Court of India approved the Principle of prospective overruling ?
- aKesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala
- bMinerva Mills Vs. Union of India
- cGolak Nath Vs. State of Punjab
- dIndira Gandhi Vs. Raj Narain
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
The doctrine of prospective overruling was first introduced and approved by the Supreme Court in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), per CJ Subba Rao.
Laugh is to Weep, what pride is to ?
- aHumility
- bSorrow
- cPleasure
- dPity
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
Laugh and Weep are antonyms; the antonym of pride is humility.
Find out the odd one ?
- aTall-short
- bLaugh-cry
- cBig-huge
- dEnormous-tiny
Answer & solution
Correct answer: C
The pairs (a) tall-short, (b) laugh-cry, (d) enormous-tiny are all antonyms, whereas big-huge are synonyms, making (c) the odd one out.
Four friends were seated around a square table. Meera was to the right of Padmam and Veena was to the left of Krishna. Who among the following faced each other ?
- aPadmam and Krishna
- bVeena and Padmam
- cKrishna and Meera
- dKrishna and Veena Find out the conclusion/s which will logically follow from the given statement. (Common to Q.Nos.99 and 100)
Answer & solution
Correct answer: A
Around a square table, with Meera to Padmam's right and Veena to Krishna's left, the seating works out so that Padmam and Krishna sit opposite and face each other.
Statement: The Laws framed by the Government for the purpose of giving equal treatment to every citizen on implementation will perpetuate a corrupt working system. Conclusions: I. The laws should be framed but they should not be implemented to avoid a corrupt working system. II. There should be obvious method to investigate corrupt working system
- aconclusion I follows
- bconclusion II follows
- ceither I or II follows
- dneither I nor II follows
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
Conclusion I (not implement the law) is an extreme/illogical inference, and Conclusion II about a method to investigate corruption does not follow from the statement; hence neither conclusion follows.
Statement: If all players play to their full potential, the team will win the match. The team has won the match. Conclusions: I. All players played to their full potential. II. Some players did not play to their full potential.
- aonly conclusion I follows
- bonly conclusion II follows
- ceither I or II follows
- dneither I nor II follows
Answer & solution
Correct answer: D
The conditional 'if all play to potential, team wins' being true with the team having won does not let us affirm the antecedent (winning could occur otherwise); so neither I nor II necessarily follows.
Practise Kerala Judiciary the smart way.
Free mock tests modelled on this exact paper pattern, plus the full Kerala Judiciary preparation guide.