TRESPASS

MEANING: TRESPASS TO LAND MEANS INTERFERENCE WITH THE

POSSESSION OF LAND WITHOUT LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION. IN
TRESPASS, INTERFERENCE WITH A POSSESSION IS DIRECT AND
THROUGH SOME TANGIBLE OBJECT. IF THE INTERFERENCE IS NOT
DIRECT BUT CONSEQUENTIAL,THE WRONG MAY BE NUISANCE. FOR
EXAMPLE: PLANTING A TREE ON ANOTHER’S LAND IS A TRESPASS
BUT IF A PERSON PLANTS A TREE OVER HIS LAND OF THE
NEIGHBOUR, THAT WILL BE A NUISANCE.
TRESPASS COULD BE COMMITTED BY EITHER BY THE PERSON
HIMSELF ENTERING THE LAND OF ANOTHER PERSON OR DOING THE
SAME THROUGH SOME MATERIAL OBJECT. FOR EX: THROWING OFF
STONES ON ANOTHER PERSON’S LAND, PLACING LADDER AGAINST
THE WALL,ALLOWING CATTLE TO STRAY ON ANOTHER PERSON’S
LAND OR LEAVING DEBRIS ON THE ROOF OF ANOTHER MAY BE
REGARDED AS TRESPASS.

TRESPASS AB INITIO
WHEN A PERSON ENTERS CERTAIN PREMISES UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF SOME LAW AND AFTER HAVING ENTERED THERE
ABUSES THAT AUTHORITY BY COMMITING SOME WRONGFUL ACTS
THERE, HE WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE A TRESPASSER AB INITIO TO
THAT PROPERTY. EVEN THOUGH HE HAD ORIGINALLY,LAWFULLY
ENTERED THERE,THE LAW CONSIDERS HIM TO BE A TRESPASSER
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND PRESUMES THAT HE HAD GONE
THERE WITH THAT WRONGFUL PURPOSE IN MIND. THE PLANTIFF
CAN THEREFORE CLAIM DAMAGES NOT ONLY FOR THE WRONGFUL
ACT WHICH IS SUBSEQUENTLY DONE BY THE DEFENDANT BUT EVEN
IN RESPECT OF ORIGINAL ENTRY WHICH IS CONSIDERED TO BE A
TRESPASS. In order that the entry of a person to certain premises is
trens trespass ab initio mere non-feasance is not enough. It is
necessary that the defendant. have been guilty of the positive act of
misfeasance. In Six Corpenters ving taken case, the same since
carpenters entered an inn and ordered some wine and bread. After
having taken th3 their act of non-payment was mere non-feasance.
They had done no act of misfeas: such as stealing away or destroying
something. The Court in this case distinguis they refused to pay. It
was held in this case that they were not trespasser ab initi ame nce,
the license or permission of a between an entry authorized by law
and an entry under the ab party. Any act of misfeasance in the
former case would make the person trespasser " using initio. Where,
however, authority is not given by law but by a party the person
abub such authority is not a trespasser ab initio.

Conditions regarding trespass ab initio.-Two conditions

must, therefore be satisfied before applying the doctrine of trespass
ab initio: an (i) The authority to enter must have been given by law or
statute and not by an individual. (i) The subsequent act must be a
misfeasance. The defendant must have committeda misfeasance,
that is, a positive wrongful act, and not a mere non-feasance, that is,
a mere omission. Thus in the Six Carpenters case, mentioned above,
it was held that a man was not liable fortrespass ab initio by reason
of his failure to pay for food and wine consumed at an inn . The
proprietor of the inn brought an action for trespass against the six
carpenters who, having entered the inn and ordered a quart of wine
and after having taken it, refused to pay for it. The question was
whether in such circumstances their failure to pay for the wine could
be treated as a misfeasance which would make their original entry
into the inn an unlawful as a trespass. In this case the Court laid
down: (a) that if a man abuses an authority given to him by law, he
becomes a trespasser ab initio; (b) that a mere non-feasance does
not amount to such an abuse as renders a man trespasser ab initio.
 Elias v. Pasmore.3-In order to effect the arrest of a person, the
defendants who were police officers, entered the plaintiff's premises.
While there, they seized and carried away documents found on the
premises. Amongst the documents there were some which
constituted evidence on the trial of the person arrested but there
were others which did not so constitute and were subsequently
returned. In an action for trespass it was held that the defendants
were only trespassers ab initio as to the documents that were seized
and returned, but not as to land.