Skip to main content

Trespass of goods

 Trespass to Goods

Trespass is defined as improper activity in which a person enters or disturbs the custody of another person's property, whether mobile or immovable, or causes any bodily harm to the person without his consent. The word "intention" here refers to something that is done voluntarily. 

Different type of Trespass

  1. Trespassing on another person

It refers to when someone interferes with one's body inappropriately and with bad intentions. It involves the use of force that results in bodily harm and disability. Any sort of touch with one's person or body without one's consent that causes legal injury to the person is considered trespass to the person.

If a friend of B hits B on the head without B's permission, A is guilty for trespass to the body.


  1. Trespass to Property: When a person enters someone's property or causes a disturbance with someone's property, whether mobile or immovable, with the improper intent and without their agreement or permission, or without any legitimate authorization.

Trespassing on Moving Property or Goods

Trespass to movable property occurs when a person causes damage to another's movable property with the intent of causing harm.

It refers to interfering with someone's transportable property or products without their permission.

Illustration, If A, a friend of B, enters B's automobile without B's permission and scratches the hood of B's car. Trespass to Movable Property is punishable by A.

Thulasi Ammal against Muthuswami Gounder

In this situation, the car's driver was irresponsible, and he became trapped with the vehicle, causing damage to it. The court, on the other hand, stated that it was not simply an accident, but also a trespass on another's mobile property and property damage. As a result, the defendant is responsible for trespassing on moveable property.

Trespassing on Immovable Property is a crime that occurs when someone enters an immovable property without permission.

It refers to when someone makes a disturbance on someone's immovable property, such as land, property, house, or office, without their knowledge or permission or without any legal authorization.

As an example, suppose Ram posted a sign on the front gate of his garden that reads, "No Entry Without Permission." Chetan entered the garden without Ram's permission one lovely day. Chetan has broken the law by trespassing on moveable property.


Trespass on Property

Trespass to Goods occurs when a person's property is damaged directly or indirectly, or when a person's property is illegally taken away from the rightful owner without his or her agreement. In other terms, the act of trespassing goods refers to the unlawful and purposeful interference with the ownership of things by unjustly taking it away from the legitimate owner.

Hari Kar and Others v. Jadu Nath, Dundput, Sripati

In this instance, the defendant illegally entered the plaintiff's property and chopped and took away the plaintiff's standing crops. Because the defendant harmed things that were in the plaintiff's legitimate possession, the defendant is responsible for both trespass to land and trespass to goods in this case.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more