Trespass

DR. GAGAN DEEP KOUR

 TRESPASS TO LAND
Trespass to land means interference with the possession of land without lawful justification.

In trespass, the interference with the possession is direct and through some tangible object.

If the interference is not direct but consequential, the wrong may be a nuisance.

Example: Planting a tree on another's land is a trespass but if a person plants a tree over his land and its roots or
branches escape on the land of the neighbour, that will be a nuisance.

Going beyond the purpose for which a person has entered certain premises or crossing the boundary where he has
the authority to go, amounts to trespass.
Where there is a justification to enter the premises of another person, it is no trespass.

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 to restrain the defendant from parking his vehicles there.

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 vehicle without causing any inconvenience to anybody, as in the present case, and
that right can be exercised without the permission of the landlord
Trespass being a wrong against the possession, it has been seen above that a person in
possession, even if he himself is not the owner, can bring an action.

An owner of land, who neither has possession nor any immediate right to possess it, cannot bring
an action for trespass.

Trespass is actionable per se and the plaintiff need not prove any damage for an action of
trespass.
Elias v. Pasmore:

The defendants, certain police officers, entered the plaintiff's

premises to make a lawful arrest.

There they removed certain documents without having any lawful

authority for that, which was, therefore, an act of misfeasance.

By their act of misfeasance, their presence there had not become

wholly unjustified because the arrest, i.e., the lawful purpose, had
yet to be accomplished.

They were held trespassers only with regard to the documents

which they had seized and not trespassers ab initio to those
premises
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.

Hemmings v. Stoke Poges Golf Club

The plaintiff had been in the employment of the defendants. On the termination of the service, the
plaintiff was given a proper notice to quit the house. On his refusal to do so, the defendants, by the use
of reasonable force, themselves entered those premises and removed the plaintiff and his furniture out of
it. The defendants were held not liable because their action had only amounted to an ejectment of a
trespasser.

If an owner of landed property finds a trespasser on his premises, he may enter the premises and turn
the trespasser out, using no more force than is necessary to expel him, without having to pay damages
for the force used.
 William Bird v. Holbrook (1828) 4 Bingham New Cases 628

The Defendant, for the protection of his property, some of which had been stolen, set a spring gun,
without notice, in a walled garden, at a distance from his house: the Plaintiff, who climbed over
the wall in pursuit of a stray fowl, having been shot.

He was not entitled to recover damages suffered by him due to the spring-guns set by him in his
garden without any notice for the same.
2. Action for Ejectment/Recovery of Land: A person who had been dispossessed of certain
immovable property, without due course of law, can recover back the property without establishing
any title.

The plaintiff has to prove that he was in possession of certain immovable property, he was evicted
out of that by the defendant without due course of law and that the suit for regaining the possession
has been brought within six months of his dispossession.

Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that if one in possession of immovable property
is disposed, otherwise than by due course of law, he may, within six months, sue to recover
possession without reference to any title set up by another, which is left to be determined in a
separate action.

3. Action for Mesne Profits: A person who was wrongfully dispossessed of his land may also claim
compensation for the loss which he has suffered during the period of dispossession.

Plaintiff can sue for ejectment and mesne profits in the same action.
4. Distress Damage Feasant:

It 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.

The right is available only when the object in question is unlawfully there on certain land.

The thing seized must be the very thing which had trespassed and caused the damage.
 Trespass ab initio

When a person enters certain premises under the authority of some law and 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.

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.
Six Carpenters' 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 non-feasance, there was
held to be no trespass ab initio. It has also to be noted that it is not every act of misfeasance which
can convert the lawful entry of a person to a trespass ab initio.

The fact of misfeasance must be such that will render the presence of the defendant on the
premises as wholly unjustified.
TRESPASS TO GOODS
 It consists in direct physical interference with the goods which are in the
plaintiff's possession, without any lawful justification.

Trespass to goods is actionable per se, that is, without the proof of any
damage. However, when the plaintiff has suffered no loss, he will get
TRESPASS only nominal damages.

TO GOODS Example: Throwing of stones on a car, shooting birds, beating animals

or infecting them with disease or chasing animals to make them run
away from their owner's possession.

A person may be either in the direct physical possession of the goods or

may have their constructive possession, e.g., as an owner of the goods
or, he may possess them through his servant or agent, as a carrier of
goods or as some,-other bailee.
A person in possession can sue even without any proof of his title to the goods.

Armory v. Delamirie

The chimney sweeper's boy, who after finding a jewel had given it to a jeweller to be valued, was
held entitled to recover its full value from the jeweller on his refusing to return the same.

Direct physical interference without lawful justification is a trespass.

Transco Plc v. United Utilities Water Plc, [2005] EWHC 2784 (QB)

The defendant’s employee mistakenly closed off a valve, cutting off the gas supply to the
claimant’s customers. The claimant incurred costs investigating and restoring the gas supply.
Plaintiff incurred substantial costs in restoring and investigating the issues surrounding the gas
supplies. Plaintiff alleged Defendant was liable for negligence and trespass i.e. wrongful
interference with goods, seeking to claim pure economic loss.
 CONVERSION
Conversion (Trover) consists in 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,
is deprived of that.

Refusing to deliver the plaintiff's goods, putting them to one's own use or consuming them,
transferring the same to a third party, destroying them or damaging them in a way that they lose
their identity, or dealing with them in any other manner which deprives the plaintiff to its use and
possession are some of the examples of the wrong.
If the person selling the goods sells them without any authority from the owner, he may be held
liable for conversion. The owner of the goods may also recover the goods from the purchaser of
them because the general rule protects the interest of the owner of the goods as against the buyer.

For an action for conversion, it is also necessary that the plaintiff must have a right to the
immediate possession of the goods at the time of their conversion.
Distinction between Trespass and Conversion

• Analogous Torts – each arising out of an unlawful dealing with personal chattels.

• Trespass is essentially a wrong to the actual possessor and therefore cannot be committed by a person in
possession – conversion - is a wrong to the person entitled to immediate possession.
• Conversion may but does not necessarily include trespass

• To damage or meddle with the chattel of another – but without intending to exercise adverse possession
over it – is a trespass. A Conversion – is a breach made adversely in the continuity of the owner’s
dominion over his goods though the goods may not be damaged.

• The gist of trespass is the force and direct injury inflicted and in Conversion – it is deprivation of the
goods or their use.

• Person snatching a gold ring with a view to steal it – amounts to both trespass and conversion. But if
a person borrows the right for his use but later on sells it he will be liable for conversion only.