TRESPASS TO

PROPERTY
 Synopsis
Introduction
Trespass

Trespass to person.
Trespass to chattels.
Trespass to Property.
o Trespass to person
Assault
Battery
False imprisonment
Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
Trespass is an unlawful act causing injury to
another person.
There are two important rules

i)that it is for the defendant to plead

an prove justification and not for the
plaintiff to show that defendants conduct
was unreasonable.
ii) The damage is not an essential
element and need not be proved by plaintiff.
The importance of trespass is that it can be
used for protection ones liberty.
 Assault is an attempt or threat to do a
corporeal hurt to another with an ability and
intention to do an act.
Actual contact is not necessary in assualt
though it is battery.
When the defendant by his act creates an
apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff that
he is going to commit battery the wrong of
assault is complete.
Example- Pointing a pistol is assault. If the
pistol is not loaded even that may be assault if
pointed from such distance that it may cause
injury. But if the plaintiff known's the pistol is
not loaded there is no assault.
 ABILITY TO DO HARM-There must be an ability
to do harm, if an stick is shown from far it
does not result into assault.
Verbal threat is not assault unless it creates
reasonable apprehension in plaintiffs mind
that immediate force will be used.
INTENTION- Intention is also an important
thing in order to constitute assault.
CASE LAWS
Bavisetti Venkata Surya Roa Vs Nandipatti
Muthayya
Stephens Vs Myers.
In every battery however there may be no
assault.
 BATTERY
Battery is nothing but intentional use of
force without any lawful justification.
WHAT ARE THE TWO INGREDITENTS OF
BATTERY?
 USE OF FORCE
Even the force used is very little would
amount to battery. Physical harm may not be
there least touching amounts to battery. The
may used even without bodily contact with
the aggressors.
Spitting on one person ,throwing water,
pulling a chair are examples of use of force.
WITHOUT LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION

It is essential that use of force must be

intentional and without lawful justification.
Harm caused by pure accident are not
actionable
 STANLEY VS POWELL.
PRATAP DAJI VS BB & C.I.RLY

Use of force oust a trespass is reasonable.

Both civil and criminal action can be taken
with regard to assualt and battery.
 Damages in Civil Assault and Battery Cases
In a successful assault or battery suit, the plaintiff
isawarded damagesto compensate her for the injuries
and expenses that resulted from the tort. That usually
includes any medical expenses, lost wages, or pain and
suffering that the victim experienced. If the assault or
battery was especially traumatic, the plaintiff may
receive damages to cover the cost of therapy as well.
Civil assault and civil battery are intentional torts,
meaning they stem from intentional acts rather than
negligence on the part of the defendant. Victims of
intentional torts can receive a special type of damages
known as punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant
to penalize the defendant for especially appalling
behavior and deter others from engaging in similar
conduct. In many cases, punitive damages can be up to
three-times the amount awarded for regular damages.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
Imposition of total restraint for some period
upon liberty of another without sufficient
lawful justification.
IMPOSITION OF TOTAL RESTRAINT+UPON
LIBERTY+WITHOUT LAWFULJUSTICATION
If a person is restrained by threat of force
from leaving his house there is a false
imprisonment.
 TOTAL RESTRAINT
Under criminal law both partial and total wrong
are actionable.
TOTAL CONFINEMENT -Wrongful confinement- A
person is restrained from going beyond a
certain boundary.(sec 340)
PARTIAL CONFINEMENT-( SEC 339) prevents a
person from going to a particular direction he
has the right to is wrongful restraint under IPC.
Under Civil law there has to be there has to be
total restraint in order to constitute as False
Imprisonment. There is no imprisonment if the
man is prohibited from proceeding in particular
direction
 Total restraint results into imprisonment
however short it may be.
Mee Vs Cruikshank.
MEANS TO ESCAPE

If there are means to escape the detention

cannot be termed to be total.
Means should be such as they can be
intelligible.
KNOWLEDGE OF PLAINTIFF
There is a difference of opinion regarding the
matter whether knowledge of the plaintiff is
essential to constitute the wrong of false
imprisonment.
In the earlier cases it has been held that if
the person doesnot know that he has been
restrained it will not result to false
imprisonment
But in Meering Vs Grahame aviation Co-it has
been held that knowledge of imprisonment is
not an essential element for bring an action.
 UNLAWFUL DETENTION
In order to constitute the wrong of false
imprisonment it is essential that restraint
should be unlawful or without justification.
RUDAL SHAH VS STATE OF BIHAR
GARIKIPATI VS AZARA BIKSHAM
LAWFUL DETENTION
When there are some justification for
detaining a person there is no false
imprisonment.
ROBINSON VS BALMAIN NEW FERRY CO LTD.
Law permits the arrest of a person when he
has committed some offence. Such arrest
may be made by by a magistrate , a police
officer or a private individual .A private
person may arrest any person who-
a. in his view has committed non-bailable and
cognizable offence.
b. is a proclaimed offender.
After making such an arrest should he should
without delay hand that person to a police
officer or nearest police station.
 REMEDIES-
i. Action for damages.
ii. Self help.
iii. Habeas Corpus.
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
The first thing that may give rise to the tort is an act
or omission which results in a wrong on another.
Emotional distress caused by an act or omission can
be classified as a wrong in some cases. When the
emotional distress is inflicted intentionally, the
aggrieved party will be able to seek legal remedies.
But in the case of negligent infliction of emotional
distress, it becomes very difficult.
But when the negligent infliction of emotional
distress occurs between people involved in intimate
relationships, the question on whether this is
sufficient grounds for bringing a tortuous action
becomes a very important one.
 Emotional distress is a part and parcel of
every intimate relationship. When a father
scolds his son, even if it is for his well being,
he is causing emotional distress to the son.
This can be seen as a part of the wear and
tear of every personal relationship.
Establishing such a tort would give the son
the authority to sue the father for inflicting
emotional distress negligently. There is also
no measure as to how much is the degree of
duty of care required and to what extent will
the emotional distress be.
 whether it is feasible to establish negligent
infliction of emotional distress as a ground for
torts?
The closest the Indian court has established
emotional distress is regard to cruelty ie
mental cruelty is a good ground for divorce
Courts have always tried to reflect the changes
in society in their judgments and policies.
They have always tried to provide remedies to
prevent injustices from happening. Emotional
distress was first recognized as a serious injury
and one that occurs too often in our society. In
order to provide a remedy for those who have
been hurt emotionally the courts introduced
Intentional Infliction of emotional distress
 Relying on the judgement Boyles v Kerr it
was held the negligent infliction of emotional
distress was seen to be too broad concept in
India the concept of Emotional distress is not
widely accepted till present time.
DEFAMATION
Defamation is an injury to the reputation of a person.
Defamation is divided into two parts-

i)Slander ii)Libel
Slander is in temporary form where as libel is in
permanent form.
Another way of distinguishing Libel and Slander is Libel is
addressed to eye and Slander is to ear.

Under English law-

i)In criminal law only libel is actionable.
Slander is no offence
ii) Slander is actionable only in exceptional cases.
In civil offence Libel is actionable per se but in case of
slander proof has to be shown that special damage is done.
 Slander is also actionable per se in
exceptional cases.
INDIAN LAW: In India there is no difference
between libel and slander .Both libel and
Slander are criminal offences under section
499.
In India both libel and Slander are actionable
per se.
There are series of judgment where it has
been held that Slander actionable per se
without showing any special damage.
DP Choudhary Vs Manjulata
 Essentials of Defamation
The statement must be defamatory.
The said statement must refer to plaintiff.
The statement must be published.

1. The statement must be defamatory-

Defamatory statement is one which injuries
the reputation of the plaintiff. If an
statement injures the reputation of another
there is no defence to say that it was not
intended to be defamatory.
RAM JETHMALANI VS SUBRAMANIAM SWAMMY
 Mere hasty expression spoken in anger or
vulgar abuse to which no hearer would
attribute any set purpose to injure character
would not be actionable.
Words which merely injure the feelings or
cause annoyance but which in no way reflect
on character or reputation are not
rebellious.
No action for damages can lie for mere
insult.
South Indian Railway co Vs Ramakrishnan
 THE INNUENDO:
When the natural or plain meaning is not
defamatory but the plaintiff wants bring an
action for defamation he must prove the latent
and secondary meaning which makes the
statement defamatory.
CAPITAL AND COUNTRIES BANK VS HENTY &
SONS:
Intention to defame is not necessary.
CASSIDY VS DAILY MIRROR NEWSPAPER LTD.
2.The statement must refer to the plaintiff-
In a action for defamation the plaintiff has to
prove the statement of which he complains
referred to him.
TV Ramasubha Iyer Vs A.M.A Mohindeen-The
question which came before the Madras High
court was that whether there was liability in
India for a defamatory statement published
without an intention to defame the Plaintiff.
o DEFAMATION OF A CLASS OF PERSONS: When
the words refer to a group of individuals or
class of persons, no member of that group or
class can sue unless he can prove that the
words could reasonably be considered to be
referring to him.
 KNUPFFER VS LONDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER
Ltd-
3.The statement must be published-
Publication means making the defamatory
matter known to some other person other than
the person defamed.
Dictating a letter to ones typist is enough
publication.
Sending the defamatory letter to the
plaintiff in a language supposed to be known
to the plaintiff is no defamation.
Mahendra Ram vs Harnandan Prasad
 Not only the author is liable editor,printer
publisher all are liable .These are another
kind of persons who might disseminate the
matter without knowing its content.
DEFENCES

a. JUSTIFICATION or TRUTH-In Civil action for

defamation truth of the defamatory matter is a
complete defence.
IPC requires that besides the statement being
true it has to be for public good.
If the statement is substantially true but
incorrect in respect of certain minors
particulars, the defence will still be available.
ALEXANDER VS NORTH EASTERN RY
b. Fair Comment- Making fair comment on matters
of public interest is a defence to an action for
defamation. For this defence to be available
following essentials are required.
i. It must be a comment, ie an expression of
opinion rather than assertion of fact.
ii. The comment must be fair.
iii. The matter commented upon must be of public
interest.
o Whether a statement is a fact or a comment on
certain facts depends on the language used or the
context in which it is stated.
o Z book is indecent ,Z must be a man of
impure mind. These are only comments based on
Zs book and A will be protected if has said
that in good faith.
 But if A says I am not surprised that Zs
book is foolish as he is a weak man. It is not
a comment on Z book but is rather a
statement of of fact, and the defence of fair
comment cannot be pleaded in such a case.
c. Privilege-There are certain occasion when
freedom of speech and expression is more
important than plaintiffs right to reputation.
Privileges are divided into two kinds-
i. Absolute Privilege
ii. Qualified Privilege
i. Absolute Privilege are divided into
-Parliamentary Proceeding
-Judicial Proceeding
- State Communications
Parliamentary Proceeding-
Article 105(2) of our Constitution provides that
a. Statements made by a member of either
house of Parliament
b. Publication by or under the authority of
either House of Parliament cannot be
questioned in the court of law.
A similar privilege exist with regard to state
Legislatures- Art 194(2)
 Judicial Proceeding
No action for Libel or slander lies whether
against judges, counsels or parties for words
spoken or written in course of proceeding
before any court.
No action will ever lie though this words are
used maliciously.
Jiwan Mal Vs Lachman
State communications
A statement made by one officer of the State
to another in course of official duty is
absolutely privileged for reasons of public
policy.
ii) Qualified Privilege-In certain cases the
defence of qualified privilege is also available.
Unlike the defence of absolute priviledge in
this case it is necessary that the statement
have been made without malice.
It is further necessary that there must be an
occasion for making the statement.
Thus to avail the defence the defendant has to
prove-
i. The statement was made on a privileged
occasion ie it was in discharge of duty or
protection of interest ,fair report of the
parliamentary, judicial or other proceedings
ii.The statement was made without any malice
 RADHESHYAM TIWARI VS EKNATH-In this case
the defendant was a editor ,publisher and
printer of a marathi newspaper.
In an article it was mentioned the plaintiff
who was a BDO issued false certificates,
accepted bribe, adopted false and corrupt
means and one of article described him as a
mischeif monger.
The defendant pleaded for all defences-
justification of truth, fair comment
&qualified priviledge.
 The defence of justification cannot be taken
as the truth of the facts couldnt be proved.
The defence of fair comment cannot be
taken when there is a statement of fact
rather than expression of opinion.
The defence of qualified privilege couldnt
be availed because publication were
malafide and the editor consciously tried to
malign the BDO.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!