The question requires matching specific defences in Tort (List-I) with their corresponding landmark cases (List-II).

Defences in Tort Law Explained

Volenti Non Fit Injuria Match

Principle: "To a willing person, injury is not done." This means no liability for injuries if the claimant voluntarily accepts the risk.

Related Case: (ii) Samira Kohli Vs Prabha Manchanda. This case addresses consent in medical treatment, aligning with the defence.

Judicial Acts Match

Principle: Protection for judges and judicial officers acting in their official capacity within jurisdiction and in good faith.

Related Case: (iii) Anwar Hussain Vs Ajoy Kumar. This case involves actions by a judicial officer, relevant to this defence.

Acts of State Match

Principle: Defence concerning acts of the sovereign power, typically in governance or foreign affairs.

Related Case: (iv) Vinod Kumar Shantilal Gosalia Vs Gangadhar Narsinghadas Agarwal. This case is associated with this defence as per the provided correct answer.

Necessity Defence Match

Principle: Committing an unlawful act to prevent a greater and more imminent harm or danger.

Related Case: (i) Olga Tellis Vs Municipal Corporation, Bombay. This case is associated with this defence as per the provided correct answer.

Correct Match Selection

The correct pairings are:

• (a) Volenti non fit injuria - (ii) Samira Kohli Vs Prabha Manchanda
• (b) Judicial acts - (iii) Anwar Hussain Vs Ajoy Kumar
• (c) Acts of State - (iv) Vinod Kumar Shantilal Gosalia Vs Gangadhar Narsinghadas Agarwal
• (d) Necessity - (i) Olga Tellis Vs Municipal Corporation, Bombay

This corresponds to the option (a)-(ii), (b)-(iii), (c)-(iv), (d)-(i).

Therefore, the correct answer is Option A.