TORT AGAINST

PROPERTY
TRESPASS TO LAND & PERSONAL
PROPERTY
Meaning: trespass to land means interference with the possession of land without
lawful justification.

Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land/property

of another or doing the same through some material object

e.g throwing of stones on another person’s land, driving nails into the wall etc
TRESPASS TO LAND

 Trespass is possible not only on the surface of land but also by an intrusion in
the subsoil e.g taking minerals out of the subsoil
 Trespass is actionable per se i.e the plaintiff need not prove any damage for
an action of trespass.
 TRESPASS MAY BE COMMITTED:
i) By entering upon the land of the plaintiff
ii) By remaining there
iii) By doing an act affecting the sole possession of the plaintiff
Without lawful justification
TRESPASS TO LAND

 Entry is essential to constitute trespass and the entry must be intentional.

Entry may be lawful in the beginning but remaining there afterwards unlawfully
on the land of another amounts to trespass.

e.G A watches a movie for which he has the ticket. After the show is over, if A
still sits there and watches another show without ticket, it will amount to a
trespass.
Modes of committing trespass

1. Trespass on land/property
2. Below or beneath the land/property e.g taking minerals from below the sub
soil
3. Above land i.e aerial trespass
4. Animal trespass
Modes of committing trespass

1. Trespass on land/property

It is unlawful entry on the land of another. Where there is a justification to enter

the premises of another person, it is no trespass.
Case : Madhav Vithal Kudwa v. Madhavdas Vallabhdas
the defendant was the plaintiff’s tenant. He was living on the first floor of
the multi-storeyed building. He used to park his car in the compound of
the plaintiff’s building. The plaintiff contended that the parking of the car
in his compound without his permission was a trespass and sued for an
injunction.
It was held that the tenant of a multi-storeyed building has a right to use
the compound, if any, around the building for parking of his car or other
vehicles without causing any inconvenience to anybody and that right can
be exercised without the permission of the landlord.
Modes of committing trespass

2. Trespass below/beneath the land/property

Trespass is possible not only on the surface of the land but it is also
equally possible by an intrusion on the subsoil.

Eg- Taking minerals from out of the subsoil. 

Modes of committing trespass

3. Aerial trespass
A person has an ownership of not only the earth’s surface but also of
anything below-subsoil or above-airspace, that surface which is capable
of being reduced into private ownership.
Case: Kelson v/s Imperial Tobacco Company Ltd (advertising
sign)
An advertising sign erected by the Defendant projected into the airspace
above the plaintiff’s single storey shop.
Held: The projection into the plaintiff’s airspace amounted to trespass.
Modes of committing trespass

 In India, the Aircraft Act, 1934 makes it a punishable offence for any
person wilfully to fly an aircraft to cause danger to any person or
property in land or water or in the air 
Section 17 : No suit shall be brought in any Civil Court in respect of trespass or in
respect of nuisance by reason only of the flight of aircraft over any property at a
height above the ground which having regard to wind, weather and all the
circumstances of the case is reasonable, or by reason only of the ordinary
incidents of such flight.
Modes of committing trespass

4. Trespass by Animals
A trespass by a man’s cattle is dealt with similar to trespass committed by himself.
A person who brings animals on a highway must take reasonable care to prevent it
from doing damage thereon.

In India, the law relating to trespass by cattle is contained in the Cattle Trespass
Act 1871

Case law: Ellis v/s Leftus Iron Co

Anderson v/s Buckton
Modes of committing trespass to land

 Case law: Ellis v/s Leftus Iron Co

Where the defendant’s horse injured the plaintiff’s mare by biting and kicking
her through an iron fence belonging to the defendant, which separated the
defendant’s land from the plaintiff’s, it was held that there was a trespass.

Case : Anderson v/s Buckton

Where cattle affected with a contagious disorder trespassed upon adjoining
pasture and infected other cattle there with the disease, it was held that the
owner of the trespassing cattle was responsible for the damage.
Trespass to Personal Property

 Trespass to goods is an unlawful disturbance in possession of the goods by

seizure or removal or by a direct act causing damage to the goods.
e.G removing a tyre from a car, scratching the panel of a coach

Case law : Dajiba Anandrav v/s BB & CL RY Co

Where the Defendant without leave quarried on the land of the plaintiff and
removed a large quantity of stones therefrom, it was held that the plaintiff was
entitled to recover damages from the Defendant.

Hamps v/s Darby (shooting home-coming pigeons)

DETENTION/DETINUE

MEANING: wrongfully detaining/withholding of goods belonging to the plaintiff

and refusing to deliver the same on lawful demands.

Thus, it is an action for recovery of goods unlawfully detained by the Defendant.

If the original possession is lawful, but subsequently the goods are wrongfully
detained, an action for detention can be brought.
 Position in India
In India, “Detention” is not mentioned as a wrong but similar action can be brought under
S. 7 and 8 of Specific Relief Act : Recovery of possession of specific movable property.

Section 7. Recovery of specific movable property.— A person entitled to the possession of specific
movable property may recover it in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section 8  Liability of person in possession, not as owner, to deliver to persons entitled to immediate
possession
Under this section, THE RELIF IS POSSIBLE IF-
a) When the thing claimed is held by the Defendant as a trustee/agent of the plaintiff
b) When compensation in money will not afford the plaintiff adequate relief for the loss of thing
c) When it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the actual damage cause by its loss
CONVERSION

Conversion means wilfully and without any justification dealing with goods in
such a manner that another person, who is entitled to immediate use and
possession of the same , is deprived of that.

Meaning : “dealing with the goods in such a manner which is inconsistent with
the rights of the owner”

e.G refusing to deliver plaintiff’s goods, transferring them to third party,

destroying them or damaging them
 Wrongful intention is not necessary for conversion
Case : Roop Lal v/s Union of India
Some military jawans found some firewood lying by the river side. They thought
that the wood belonged to the Government and they had every right to take
away the same. They took away the wood for camp fire and fuel. Ultimately, it
turned out that the wood belonged to the plaintiff.

Held:
The fact that the jawans did not intend to cause conversion does not absolve
them from liability.
MODES OF CONVERSION

BY TAKING

BY BY PARTING
DESTRUCTION WITH GOODS

CONVERSION

BY KEEPING BY SALE
MODES OF CONVERSION

1. Conversion by Taking
Wrongful taking of goods amounts to conversion. It makes no difference that such
act was done under a mistaken but honest supposition of being lawfully entitled.

Case: Mills v/s Brooker

Where a person lopped the branches of fruit trees overhanging his land and
appropriated the fruit, it was held that he was guilty of conversion and liable to
the owner for its value.
MODES OF CONVERSION

2. Conversion by parting with goods

If a man who is interested in the goods of another, put them into the hands of a
third person, contrary to the orders, it is conversion.

The giver and the receiver will be liable as joint tortfeasors.

e.G the hirer of a piano who sends the goods to the auctioneer to be sold is guilty
of conversion.
MODES OF CONVERSION

3. Conversion by Sale
Wrongful sale of goods is conversion.

Case law: R.H Willis & Son v/s British Car Auctions
The Plaintiffs were car dealers who sold a car after receiving a part payment
from C on hire purchase making it clear that C was not to sell the car before he
paid the balance of the price. C, however, sold the car through the defendants
who were auctioneers.
Held:
This amounted to conversion.
MODES OF CONVERSION

4. Conversion by keeping
If a man has property of another and if he refuses to deliver it to him, it may
amount to conversion.

Exception: Finder of goods

Finder of goods may keep the goods with him till he finds the true owner.
Case law:
i)Parker v/s British Airways Board
ii) Debendranath Mullick v/s O.C Mullick
iii) Haryana Cotton Mills Co Ltd v/s B.B & C.I Ry Co
MODES OF CONVERSION

 Case law: Parker v/s British Airways Board

Facts:
The plaintiff who was a passenger found a bracelet in the executive lounge at
the London airport. The plaintiff handed over the bracelet to an employee of the
Airlines with a direction that the bracelet be returned to him if it is not claimed
by the owner. The owner did not claim the bracelet still Airlines did not return
the bracelet to the plaintiff and instead sold it and kept the proceeds. The
plaintiff sued for conversion.
Held: The plaintiff being the finder of goods was held entitled to the bracelet
against everyone except the true owner.
MODES OF CONVERSION

 Case law:
Debendranath Mullick v/s O.C Mullick
A refusal to deliver up an idol, whereby the person demanding it was prevented
from performing his turn of worship on a specified date was held to give the
party aggrieved a right to sue for damages.

Haryana Cotton Mills Co Ltd v/s B.B & C.I Ry Co

Refusal or neglect by railway company to deliver goods after demand made was
held to be conversion.
MODES OF CONVERSION

5. Conversion by Destruction
Destruction of goods belonging to another amounts to conversion.
e.g by burning the goods
PASSING OFF :INJURY TO PATENT,
TRADEMARK, COPYRIGHT
Patents, trademark and copyright are forms of intellectual properties.

Intellectual property: property made by the human intellect. It is an intangible

property.

Patents: rights in patented invention (Patents Act, 1970)

Trademark : rights in trademarks/trade names (Trade Marks Act, 1999)
Copyright : rights in literary, artistic, dramatic, musical works (Copyrights Act, 1957)
Meaning of Passing Off

Passing off is a form of tortious action. The action is regarded as an action for
deceit.

Meaning: If someone uses the same or similar name for his product as that of the
plaintiff or by the get-up makes it to appear that they are plaintiff’s goods, the
wrong of passing off is committed.

Object of passing off: to protect the goodwill and reputation of a business from
encroachment by dishonest competitors

Principle behind passing off:

This doctrine is based on the principle that no one has right to represent one’s goods
as the goods of other.
Definition of passing off

 The Supreme Court has defined passing-off action in Cadila Healthcare Ltd v.
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd as –
“the species of unfair trade competition or of actionable unfair trading by which
one person, through deception, attempts to obtain an economic benefit of the
reputation, which the other has established for himself in a particular trade or
business”
 The law of passing off thus not only protects the interest of the owner of the
trademark but also of the consumers.
 It is a common law remedy available for unregistered goods and services
Applicability of passing off

 It applies wherever there is a possibility of confusion between the trademark

or identity of goods through the unauthorized use of similar marks or get up.
e.G using a mark “Colmate” on a tooth paste with a similar get up to pass it off
as “Colgate”
Using a mark “Loto” on shoes with similar get up to pass it off as “Lotto”
Essentials of passing off

1. Reputation of goods
2. Possibility of deception
3. Likelihood of damage
Essentials Explained
1. Reputation of goods
The plaintiff in an action for passing off must show that he has acquired a reputation or
goodwill in his goods, name or mark

2. Possibility of deception
There should be a misrepresentation, intentional or unintentional by the Defendant by the use
of the mark/its name or the goods which leads or is likely to lead the purchaser into believing
that the goods or service offered by the Defendant are the goods and services of the plaintiff.
Passing off would occur when the mark is not only being used deceptively similar to the mark
of another but it is being used to create confusion in the minds of the consumer that results in
the damage or loss of business for the person or company who/which is the lawful owner of
the trademark.

3. Likelihood of damage
The plaintiff has suffered or is likely to suffer damage due to the belief endangered by the
Defendant’s representation.
Case laws

GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals v. Unitech Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd

Facts:
the plaintiff had alleged that the defendants were selling products with the
trademark ‘FEXIM’ that were confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s trademark
‘PHEXIN’, which was used for pharmaceutical preparations. The defendants
were selling antibiotic tablets bearing the trademark ‘FEXIM,’ and packaging
that looks deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff, with the intent of not
only infringing on the trademark but also passing off the goods as those of
the plaintiff because the two marks were phonetically similar.
Held:
The defendants were barred from using the trademark ‘FEXIM,’ because the
said trademark appeared to be confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s
trademark ‘PHEXIN,’ along with the packaging material resulting in deceiving
the purchasers. 
Case laws
Ellora Industries v/s Banarsi Dass

Facts:
The plaintiffs were the registered proprietors of the trade mark “Ellora” in
respect of watches, time pieces, clocks and their parts. They had been selling
clocks under this trade name since 1955.The Defendants manufactured time
pieces with the trade mark “Gargon” printed on the dial of the timepieces. On
the card board container containing the time piece was printed “ELLORA
INDUSTRIES GARGON PUNJAB”.
The Plaintiff brought an action requesting for an injunction to restrain the
defendants from using the mark “Ellora” and also for passing off their goods as
the goods of the plaintiff.
Held:
This amounted to passing off.
Case Laws

Virendra Dresses v/s Varinder Garments

The plainff was carrying on the business of ready made garments under the name
and style of “Virendra Dresses”. Two years later, the Defendants started the
same kind of business in the same street under the name and style of “Varinder
Garments”.
Held:
The trade names of both the Plaintiff and Defendant were similar. This was likely
to mislead the people and the plaintiff was likely to suffer in business.
Case Laws

Honda Motors Co. Ltd V Charanjit Singh & Others

Facts:
Plaintiff was using trademark "HONDA" in respect of automobiles and power
equipments. Defendants started using the mark "HONDA" for its pressure cookers.
Plaintiff bought an action against the defendants for passing of the business of
the plaintiff.
It was held that the use of the mark "Honda" by the defendants couldn't be said
to be an honest adoption. Its usage by the defendant is likely to cause confusion
in the minds of the public and the injunction was granted for the same.
 An action for infringement can be taken if there is a violation of intellectual
property.
Infringement Passing Off
1. It is a statutory remedy under It is a common law remedy
Trade Mark Act, 1999

2. Registration is necessary Registration is not necessary

3. Plaintiff is only required to show Apart from proving deceptive

deceptive similarity, as there is a similarity, the Plaintiff is also
presumption of confusion required to prove confusion in public
and the likelihood of injury to the
plaintiff's goodwill