Page |1

BALAJI LAW COLLEGE’S SECOND INTERNAL MOOT ROUND

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE NO.

LIST OF ABBERIVATIONS 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3-4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

SUMMARY OF FACTS 6-7

ISSUES RAISED 8

SUMMARY OF AGRUMENTS 9

ADVANCE AGRUMENTS 10-11

PRAYER 12

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 Page |2

BALAJI LAW COLLEGE’S SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

LIST OF ABBERIVATIONS

ABBERIVATIONS EXPANSIONS

& AND

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Anr. ANOTHER

St. STATE

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SC SUPREME COURT

Ergo. THEREFORE

v. VERSUS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 Page |3

BALAJI LAW COLLEGE’S SECOND MOOT COURT INTERNAL ROUND

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. Graham v. Peat
2. Elias v. Pasmore
3. D.P. Choudhary v. Kumari Manjulata
4. Narayan Singh v. Rajmal

BOOKS

1. Shivani Verma , Law Of Torts , Latest Ed.

2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal , Law Of Torts , (29th Ed.) 2022.
3. Jatindra Kumar Das , Code Of Civil Procedure (2013).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 Page |4

BALAJI LAW COLLEGE’S SECOND MOOT COURT INTERNAL ROUND

LEGAL DATABASE

• http://www.ssconline.com
• http://www.manupatrafast.com
• http://www.findlaw.com
• http://www.indiankanoon.com
• http://www.casemine.com

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Page |5

BALAJI LAW COLLEGE’S SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF TAMILRASHTRA has the jurisdiction to try the
instat matter under, section 104 Order 43 , section 19 Order 7 of The Civil Procedure Code
and Civil Land Trespass.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 Page |6

BALAJI LAW COLLEGE’S SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. “KYNDIA” is a country located in the southern part of the continent Basia.

2. “KINDU” is a religion which originated in ‘KYNDIA’ and with majority of

individuals from this country practising the same.

3. The land acted as an “ABODE” to various other religions as well.

4. Within ‘KYINDA’ in the state of “TAMILRASHTRA” there was a religious

structure of the “RANBAX” religion , it was owned by a private trust and was
situated in city of Belapur.

5. One of the widely practised custom of this religion was of Animal Scarifice.

6. As per the locals on every alternate day a dog was sacrificed in the structure
during the early hours of morning . Sometimes the sacrifies were done as early as
4:00 am , which in turn generated a lot of noise with the wailing and sequealing of
animals . This disturbed a lot of kindus who were living in the periphery of the
structure.

7. The Kindus had notified the head of the trust and a prominent religious figure of
the Ranbax religion Ms.Rebecca Sammuel , regarding the inconvince.

8. On 9th March 2019, in order to resolve the issue , the kindu origanisation “Bravo”
which consisted of kindu women led by Ms.Anushka Mitwani entered the inner
sanctum of the structure in spite of being warned by the guards and stopped the
ceremony from proceeding.

9. Ms. Sammuel , sternly ordered the kindu women to move out as it amounted to
violating and defiling their place of worship , as per Ranbax religion “no person
belonging to any other religion was allowed to enter the inner sanctum.”

10. If such enetry was done it would amount to defilement of the religious structure
and would further require ‘suddhi – Karan’(purification function ) to re-introduce
the religious structure for public use.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 Page |7

BALAJI LAW COLLEGE’S SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

11.The women engraed by Ms. Sammuel gave some passionate interviews to a local
media outlet on the inconvince caused by Ms.Sammuel and group , the interview went
viral with a lot of people claiming the same problem with the group of Ranbax
religion.
12.Ms. Sammuel infuriated with this sudden shift of narrative Ms. Anushka Mitwani
along with the kindu women.
13. Ms. SAMMUEL infuriated made a statement regarding all kindu women and
Ms.MITWANI stating , “disgusting kindu roaches being led by non -principled pig masked
as a leader”.
14. On 25th March 2019, a large group of kindu women gathered outside the structure
headed by Ms. Sammuel to protest against the statements made by her in response to this the
Ranbax follower responded with intense sloganeering
15.Fearing a riot the Government sealed the structure temporarily

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 Page |8

BALAJI LAW COLLEGE’S SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

ISSUES RAISED

THE RESPONDENT VERY RESPECTFULLY

[ISSUE 1]
Ms. MITWANI is not liable to pay damages to Ms. SAMMUEL for the alleged tort of trespass?

[ISSUE 2]
Ms. SAMMUEL is liable to pay damages to Ms. MITWANI for committing defamation?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

 Page |9

BALAJI LAW COLLEGE’S SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1.Ms.MITWANI IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO Ms. SAMMUEL FOR THE ALLEGED
TORT OF TRESPASS?

It is humbly submitted before the HON’BLE HIGH COURT that the defendant is not liable to
pay damages to the appellant as the defendant is not subjected for the tort of civil trespass as
it was a wilful conduct to stop the nuisance caused by the sacrifice of animals in the early
hours of morning which is highlighted in the case.
Ergo, The essential of tort trespass of land has not been fulfilled by the defendant.

2. WHETHER Ms. SAMMUEL IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO Ms. MITWANI FOR

COMMITING DEFAMATION ?
It is humbly submitted before the HON’BLE HIGH COURT that the appellant is liable to pay
damages to the defendant as the statement given by the appellant to the local media , though
not in a clear form somewhere has affected the reputation and prestige of the defendant.
Ergo. The essential of defamation is fulfilled by the appellant.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 P a g e | 10

BALAJI LAW COLLEGE’S SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: Ms . MITWANI IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO Ms. SAMMUELFOR THE
ALLEGED TORT OF TRESPASS?
It is been humbly submitted before the HON’BLE COURT that Ms.MITWANI is not liable to pay
damages subjecting to tort of land trespass.
Trespass is an unlawful act commited against the person or property of another person .
The conditions to be fulfilled to commit a land trespass are as follow.
1.Direct
2.Intention
3.Actionable
To prove the defendant is not liable to pay the damages , the counsel putits arguments as follow:
The civil land trespass is commited when it constitute of the following :
1.Entry is essential
2.Entry must be without permission
3.Land must be in possession
4. Entry must be intentional

Thus , the constitute ingreditins have been fulfilled by the defendant but in the good faith as the head
of the trust the appellant was merely informed that the religious sacrifice are causing disturbance and
no action was taken against it so a organization named Bravo of the kindu women entered the inner
sanctrum of the structure .
It cannot be hold as a trespass as it was merely informed to the trust holder such as the appellant .
To explain the good faith of the defendant .As in facts , the intetion of good faith are completely
supported .
For example,
One of the widely practised custom of this religion was of animal sacrifice.
As per the locals on every alternate day a dog was sacrificed in the structure during the early hours of
mornings , which in turn generated a lot of nuisance .
The kindus had notified the head of the trust and a prominent religious figure of the ranbax religion
Ms. Rebecca Sammuel regarding the inconvince .
Thus , the defendant cannot be held liable and is excusable .

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 P a g e | 11

BALAJI LAW COLLEGE’S SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

ISSUE 2:Ms. SAMMUEL IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS. MITWANI FOR

COMMITING DEFEMATION?

Defemation is an injury to a person’s reputation

Essential of defemation are as follow:
1.The statement must be defamotry
2.The statement must refer to the plaintiff
3.The statement must be published .

As per , the essential of the defemation the statement made by appellant to the local media outlet in
not in the form of slander or libel but has went viral so it has caused defemation.
I humbly submit that the appellant has commited defemation .

Therefore, it proves the point that the appellant had intention of defaming the defendant and the act of
the appellant is not excusable and liable under Section 19 of CPC.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 P a g e | 12

BALAJI LAW COLLEGE’S SECOND INTERNAL MOOT COURT ROUND

PRAYER

Wherefore , in light of the issues raised , arguments advanced and authorities

cited , may this Hon’ble Court be pleased to uphold the very considered
judgement of the civil court order vide Ms.MITWANI v. Ms. SAMMULE and
dismiss the appeal.

AND/ OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit , in the interest of Justice , Equity and
Good Conscience .

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

PLACE:TAMILRASHTRA S/D
DATE: COUNSEL OF THE DEFENDANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT