Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law of Torts

Anita owns a farm in Punjab. Neighbour Gurdeep's branches overhang her land by one metre, and Gurdeep also, without permission, walks across her field on one day to reach the road. Which statement is correct about trespass to land?

Both acts can amount to trespass, because trespass to land is actionable per se, meaning no proof of actual damage is needed. Unauthorised entry and intrusion into the space above the land are interferences with possession, and a motive to harm is not required.

  1. ANeither act is trespass because no damage was caused
  2. BOnly the walking is trespass; overhanging branches are never actionable
  3. CBoth acts can be trespass, as trespass is actionable per se without proof of damageCorrect
  4. DTrespass is established only if Gurdeep intended to harm Anita

Explanation

Trespass to land is any unjustified direct interference with land in another's possession and is actionable per se, with no need to prove damage. Entering without permission is trespass, and intrusion of overhanging branches into the air space above the land can also be trespass or nuisance. Intention to harm is not needed; only an intentional act of entry matters.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law of Torts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law of TortsFree diagnostic mock

More Law of Torts questions