Trespass to Land & Trespass to Goods (Detinue, Conversion) — Law of Torts Notes

Trespass to Land

Previous Year Questions

• [16M] What is trespass to land? What are its remedies? Discuss. (2015) ⭐⭐
• [Problem] The man who walked across a garden doing no damage; the balloonist whose descent brought a crowd into the plaintiff’s garden; the overhanging mango tree cut without notice. ⭐⭐

A man walks across his neighbour’s field without permission. He damages nothing, takes nothing, and is gone in a minute. He has committed a tort — and the neighbour can sue without proving a rupee of loss. Trespass protects possession itself, not the value of what was disturbed.

Unjustifiable interference with possession

Trespass to land is the unjustifiable interference with the possession of land. It is actionable per se: no damage need be proved.

Note that it protects possession, not ownership. A tenant in possession can sue; a landlord out of possession generally cannot (his remedy is for injury to the reversion).

A. The forms of trespass.

1. Entry on land — walking, driving or riding on it without permission.
2. Remaining on land after permission has expired or been revoked.
3. Placing things on land — dumping rubbish, leaning a ladder, allowing a wall to encroach.
4. Trespass to airspace and subsoil. The occupier’s rights extend upwards and downwards to the height and depth necessary for ordinary use and enjoyment — projecting signs and overhanging branches are trespass; an aircraft at cruising altitude is not.
5. Continuing trespass — where the interference persists, a fresh cause of action arises daily.
6. Trespass by a third party the defendant brought. A person who trespasses is liable for the foreseeable consequences of his trespass, including damage done by a crowd his trespass attracted (Guille v Swan, 1822 — the balloonist).

B. Trespass ab initio.

Where a person enters land under an authority given by law (not by the occupier) and then abuses that authority, he becomes a trespasser from the beginning — the whole entry is treated as unlawful, not just the abuse (The Six Carpenters’ Case, 1610). The doctrine applies only to authority given by law, and only to a positive act of abuse, not to a mere omission.

C. Defences.

Entry by licence; entry by authority of law; entry to abate a nuisance; necessity; and re-entry by a person entitled to possession.

D. Remedies.

1. Damages — nominal where no loss, substantial where there is.
2. Injunction to restrain a continuing or threatened trespass.
3. Action for ejectment to recover possession.
4. Action for mesne profits — the profits the trespasser made, or the value of the use, during the wrongful occupation.
5. Self-help: expulsion of the trespasser with reasonable force, and re-entry peaceably.
6. Distress damage feasant — detaining a chattel that came unlawfully onto the land and did damage.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the overhanging mango tree

Facts. A mango tree on P’s land largely overhangs S’s land. Without giving any notice to P, S cuts off the overhanging branches. Will P succeed in an action against S?

Rule. Overhanging branches are a trespass (or nuisance) to the neighbouring land, and the occupier may abate it by cutting them back to the boundary — a lawful extra-judicial remedy.

Apply. S was entitled to abate the encroachment. Notice is ordinarily desirable but is not required where the abatement can be done without entering the other’s land. S cut only the overhanging portion.

Decoy. The absence of notice, which suggests high-handedness.

Note the limit. S must not enter P’s land to do it, must cut only what overhangs, and the severed branches and any fruit on them remain P’s property — S must offer them back, and taking them would itself be conversion.

Conclusion. P will not succeed.

The principle, in summary (not a verbatim quotation): trespass to land is committed by “entering upon land in the possession of another, or remaining upon such land, or placing or projecting any object upon it — in each case without lawful justification.” It is actionable per se, without proof of damage.

In Simple Terms: you do not need to prove you lost anything. The law protects your possession of your land as a right in itself, so the bare fact of an unjustified entry is the wrong.

flowchart TD
    T["TRESPASS TO LAND — unjustifiable interference with POSSESSION; actionable per se"]
    T --> F["Forms: entry · remaining after permission ends · placing things · airspace and subsoil · continuing trespass"]
    T --> AB["TRESPASS AB INITIO — authority given by LAW, then abused = trespasser from the start (Six Carpenters' Case)"]
    T --> D["Defences: licence · authority of law · abatement of nuisance · necessity · re-entry"]
    T --> R["Remedies: damages · injunction · ejectment · mesne profits · expulsion · re-entry · distress damage feasant"]

Case Laws

• Guille v Swan (1822) — a balloonist liable for damage done by the crowd his descent attracted.
• The Six Carpenters’ Case (1610) — trespass ab initio.
• Basely v Clarkson (1681) — mowing the neighbour’s grass by mistake; mistake is no defence to trespass.
• Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co. (1957) — a projecting advertising sign was a trespass to airspace.

Trespass to Goods, Detinue and Conversion

Previous Year Questions

• [16M] Explain the tort of conversion. (2018) ⭐⭐
• [10M] Explain conversion and distinguish it from trespass to goods. (2018) ⭐⭐
• [Problem] The borrowed wrist watch later sold; the aunt who moved jewellery for safekeeping and it was stolen. ⭐⭐

X borrows Y’s wrist watch for a few days and then sells it. The borrowing was perfectly lawful — Y handed it over willingly. The wrong happened later, at the moment X treated the watch as though it were his to sell. That moment has a name: conversion.

Three wrongs to chattels

All three protect possession of goods, and they overlap; the examinable skill is telling them apart.

A. Trespass to goods.

Direct physical interference with goods in the possession of another — taking them, moving them, damaging them, or even merely touching them without justification. It is actionable per se.

Intention to interfere is required, but a wrongful intention is not: moving jewellery to another room for safekeeping, with the best of motives, is still a trespass to goods if done without authority.

B. Detinue.

The wrongful detention of goods after the person entitled to them has made a demand for their return. The essentials are a demand and a refusal. Its distinctive feature is the remedy: the court may order the specific return of the goods themselves, not merely their value.

C. Conversion (trover).

Conversion is dealing with goods in a manner inconsistent with the owner’s right of possession, so seriously as to amount to a denial of his title.

Ways it is committed:

1. Wrongful taking of the goods.
2. Wrongful detention after demand.
3. Wrongful disposal — selling, pledging or giving them away.
4. Wrongful destruction or alteration.
5. Wrongful delivery to the wrong person.

Two points that decide problems:

1. Mistake and good faith are no defence. An auctioneer who innocently sells goods belonging to a third party converts them.
2. The interference must be serious — a mere touching is trespass; a dealing that denies the owner’s title is conversion.

D. Telling them apart.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the jewellery moved for safety

Facts. After A’s death, A’s aunt removes jewellery from his room to another room for safekeeping. It is stolen from there. A’s legal heirs sue her for trespass to the jewellery.

Rule. Trespass to goods requires an intentional interference with possession; a good motive is no defence, and no damage need be proved.

Apply. She intentionally moved goods she had no authority to move. Her benevolent purpose — the decoy — does not make the interference lawful. The trespass is complete, and she is answerable for the loss that flowed from it.

Note the limit. Had she been in lawful possession of the estate as executrix, or acting under the heirs’ authority, there would be no trespass.

Conclusion. The heirs succeed in trespass to goods.

Conversion, in summary (not a verbatim quotation): an act of wilful interference, without lawful justification, with any chattel in a manner inconsistent with the right of another, whereby that other is deprived of the use and possession of it.

In Simple Terms: conversion is treating someone else’s property as if it were your own, so decisively that you have effectively denied that it is theirs — selling it is the clearest example.

flowchart TD
    G["Wrong done to GOODS"]
    G --> T["TRESPASS TO GOODS — direct interference; actionable per se; motive irrelevant"]
    G --> D["DETINUE — wrongful detention after DEMAND and refusal; remedy = return of the goods"]
    G --> C["CONVERSION — dealing inconsistent with title: taking · detaining · disposing · destroying · misdelivering"]
    C --> M["Mistake and good faith are NO defence; damages = the full value of the goods"]

Case Laws

• Fouldes v Willoughby (1841) — removing horses from a ferry was trespass but not conversion; the seriousness of the dealing distinguishes them.
• Hollins v Fowler (1875) — an innocent broker who sold another’s cotton was liable in conversion.
• Armory v Delamirie (1722) — a finder has a title good against all but the true owner.
• Consolidated Co. v Curtis & Son (1892) — an auctioneer selling goods without title is liable in conversion.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Law of Torts topics