2. Table of contents
Trespass to land ………………………………..….5
Trespass ab initio……………………...………….4
License define………………………………………..7
Remedies ………………………………………………..8
Trespass to goods …………………………………..9
Detinue ………………………………………………….10
Conclusion………………………………………………..11
Bibliography……………………………………………….12
3. Table of cases
Six carpenter’s case ………………………………………………………….6
Wood vs. Leadbitter ………………………………………………………….7
Armory vs. Delamirie …………………………………………………………8
Banshi vs. Goverdhan ,
Richardson vs. Atkinson ……………………………………………………. 10
4. TRESPASS TO LAND
Trespass to land means interference with the possession of land
without lawful justification .
The interference with the possession of land is direct and through
tangible object . If the interference is not the direct but consequential ,
the wrong may be nuisance .
To throw stones upon one’s neighbour’s premises is a wrong of
trespass .
Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the
land of another person or doing the same through some material
object.
If a person , who is allowed to sit in a drawing-room ,enters the
bedroom without any justification , the entry into bedroom is a
trespass.
5. Trespass ab initio – When a person enters certain premises under the authority of
some law after having entered there ,abuses that authority by committing some
wrongful act there , he will be considered to be a trespasser ab initio to that
property.
In order that the entry of a person to certain premises is treated as trespass ab initio
non - feasance (omission to do something ) is not enough , it is necessary that the
defendant must have been guilty of positive act of misfeasance (doing of a wrongful
act ).
Six carpenter’s case
In this case six carpenters entered an inn and ordered some wine and bread . After
having taken the same ,they refused to pay for that . They had done no act of
misfeasance and mere-non-payment being only feasance , there was held to be no
trespass ab initio .
Elements
to prove
trespass
ab initio
Misfeasance
Non-
feasance
6. Entry with a licence
Entering certain premises with the authority of the person in possession amounts to a
licence and defendant can’t be made liable for trespass.
After the licence is revoked , the licensee becomes a trespasser on land and must quit that
place within a reasonable time .
Two kinds of licence
(1) Bare licence (2) A licence coupled with a grant
A bare licence can be revoked ,whereas a licence which is coupled with grant can’t be
revoked . In certain cases , it is possible that the licensor , by the terms of the contract ,
express or implied , may agree that even a bare licence will not also be revoked .
In Wood vs. Leadbitter , the plaintiff having purchased a ticket went to see a horse race
and the defendants were the occupiers of the racecourse . While the races races were still
going on the defendants asked the plaintiff to leave the premises and on his refusal to
comply with that, he was forcibly ejected by the defendant’s servants . The plaintiff
brought an action for assault , it was held that the revocation of the licence was effectual
and after the revocation of the licence , the plaintiff had become a trespasser and ejection of
him out of the premises wasn’t an actionable wrong .
7. Remedies
(1) Re-entry – If a person’s possession had been disturbed by a trespasser , he has a right to
use reasonable force to get a trespass vacated . A person , who is being thus entitled to the
immediate possession , uses reasonable force and regains the possession himself ,can’t be
sued for trespass .
(2) Suit for damages- A speedy remedy to a person who has been dispossessed of
immovable property otherwise than in due course of law . Suit for damages under section 6
of specific relief act which states that “a person who is dispossessed forcibly from
immovable property can suit in time period of 6 months .
(3) Action for Mense Profits - The person who is dispossessed forcibly can claim for
compensation for the loss he/she had suffered during the period of dispossession . An
action to recover such compensation is known as an action mense profits .
(4) Distress damage feasant – This right authorizes a person in possession of land to seize
the trespassing cattle or other chattels and he can detain them until compensation has been
paid to him for the damage done .
8. It consists in direct physical interference with the goods which are in the plaintiff’s
possession , without any lawful justification .It is actionable per se ,such as
throwing stones on a car ,shooting birds are some examples .
It is a wrong against possession
Any person whose possession of goods is directly interfered with can bring this
action . A person may be either in the direct physical possession of the goods or
may have their constructive possession .
Armory vs. Delamirie
The chimney sweeper’s boy , who after finding a jewel had given to a jeweller on
his refusing to return the same .
Direct interference
direct physical interference without lawful justification is a trespass . The wrong
may be committed intentionally , negligently or even by an honest mistake .
TRESPASS TO GOODS
9. Detinue
when the defendant is wrongfully detaining the goods belonging to the plaintiff and refuses to deliver the same on
lawful demands , the plaintiff
can recover the same by bringing an action for the detinue .
Detinue abolished in England
In England by passing of torts Act 1977 it had been abolished .
The tort of conversion has been extended to include those situations also which were termed as detinue .
Position in India
When the thing claimed is held by the defendant as the agent or trustee for the plaintiff .
When the compensation in money would not afford the plaintiff adequate relief for the loss of the thing claimed .When
it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the actual damage caused by it’s loss .When the possession of the thing
claimed has been wrongfully transferred from the plaintiff .
In Banshi vs. Goverdhan , the defendant having taken cycle on hire from the plaintiff failed to return the same . He
was held liable to pay to the plaintiff the estimated value of the cycle ie Rs 300 under an action for detinue .
Conversion
it also known as trover consists wilfully and without any justification dealing with the goods in such a manner that
another person , who is entitled to immediate use and possession of the same of that (means that dealing with the goods
which is inconsistent with the right of the owner ).
Richardson vs. Atkinson
the defendant drew out some wine from the plaintiff’s cask and mixed with some water to make the deficiency good
.Defendant was liable as it was inconsistent with the right of the plaintiff .
10. Conclusion
In trespass to land the interference is with possession of land , it is actionable per se , for
claiming damages wasn’t supposed to prove that he has suffered some damage , it is the
wrong against the possession rather than ownership and it is covered under Section -110 of
Indian Evidence Act .
For e.g Planting a tree on another’s land is a trespass .
The remedies are – re-entry ,suit for damages , mense profit , distress damage feasant .
In trespass to goods the there is unreasonable interference with the goods which are in the
plaintiff’s possession .
In detinue the defendant wrongfully detains the goods which belonged plaintiff and
refused to give them back on his demand.
In conversion the defendant does some act which was wilfully and unreasonable in the
dealings of the goods which was inconsistent with the right of the plaintiff .
11. Bibliography
Primary sources
R.K BANGIA ,The Law of Torts,349,350,351,352,353,354,354,356,357,
2013 edition Faridabad Haryana ,ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY
AVTAR SINGH ,HARPREET KAUR , TORTS , 400,412,415 , (Eastern book company, Lucknow
2013)
Web sources
Armory vs. Delamirie
(http://www.manupatra.com/) (visited 13/3/17, 10:40 am )
Richardson vs. Atkinson
(http://www.manupatra.com/) (visited 12/3/17 ,10:30 pm)
