Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, Anushka, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Ranveer sues Anushka for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?Principle: Interference with someoneandrsquo;s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.a)Yes, because the books were in Ranveerandrsquo;s possession, and trespass is a tort against possession and not against ownership.b)Yes, because she shouldnandrsquo;t snatch things just like that. It is bad manners.c)No, because she was the rightful owner of the books.d)No, because the books do not belong to Ranveer, and no matter who they belong to, Ranveer cannot sue.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting...

a)
Yes, because the books were in Ranveer’s possession, and trespass is a tort against possession and not against ownership.
b)
Yes, because she shouldn’t snatch things just like that. It is bad manners.
c)
No, because she was the rightful owner of the books.
d)
No, because the books do not belong to Ranveer, and no matter who they belong to, Ranveer cannot sue.

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some st...

Raneer was sitting inhis lawn altough books belong to Anshuka butpresently in possesion of Ranveer. Anshuka could avail any other remedy to get her back her books but her act in Question is tortus.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some st...

Else's property rights constitutes a trespass to goods.

No, Ranveer will not succeed in suing Anushka for trespass to goods as the books actually belong to her. Interference with someone else's property rights constitutes a trespass to goods, but it is only applicable when the property actually belongs to the person claiming the interference. As Anushka is the rightful owner of the books, she has the right to claim them back from Ranveer, and he cannot sue her for trespass to goods. Therefore, Ranveer has no legal ground to stand on in this case.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

BHAI, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, DIDI, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, BHAI sues DIDI for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.

View answer

Legal Principle: Any direct physical interference with someone’s possession of goods without any lawful justification constitutes the tort of trespass to goods.Facts:Amol was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by J.K. Rowling. Suddenly, his neighbour, Ahaana, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Amol sues Ahaana for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?

View answer

Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects".Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesn't include visitors or those who aren't considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns 'escapes onto land', and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a person's enjoyment of property. Property rights in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance.Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.Q. A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which goes by the name of One Canada Square. Residents in the area experienced interference with the television signals due to the construction of One Canada Square. Some of the claimants were homeowners whilst others were family members, lodgers and others without a proprietary interest in the property affected. Decide, whether interference with one's television reception amounted to actionable nuisance?

View answer

Instruction: This section consists of five problems in total. Each problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the questions.Rules : Problem 4A. Trespass to land means interference with the possession of land without lawful justification.B. Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land of another or doing the same through some material object: stick, stones etc.C. 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 a trespasser.D. Where there is justification to enter the premises it is no trespass.Facts: Mr. A and B were neighbours in a locality but were not friendly with each other and there was always some fight going on between both of them. Decide as per the questions.A, was an income tax officer and during the course of his service he had to enter B’s premises to search his house. B sued him for trespass. Decide

View answer

Principle: Unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of his premises is a civil wrong and forbidden by lawFacts: Ramarao neighbour was running a small printing establishment in his house. Though it was noisy at times, the neighborhood found it tolerable. One day, Ramarao’s aged father came to his house to convalesce after a major operation. He found the noise intolerable. Ramarao took up the matter with his neighbour and the latter refused to oblige him. as a result, Ramarao father died on account of the irritation. Ramarao filed a suit to close the press.

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, Anushka, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Ranveer sues Anushka for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.a)Yes, because the books were in Ranveer’s possession, and trespass is a tort against possession and not against ownership.b)Yes, because she shouldn’t snatch things just like that. It is bad manners.c)No, because she was the rightful owner of the books.d)No, because the books do not belong to Ranveer, and no matter who they belong to, Ranveer cannot sue.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, Anushka, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Ranveer sues Anushka for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.a)Yes, because the books were in Ranveer’s possession, and trespass is a tort against possession and not against ownership.b)Yes, because she shouldn’t snatch things just like that. It is bad manners.c)No, because she was the rightful owner of the books.d)No, because the books do not belong to Ranveer, and no matter who they belong to, Ranveer cannot sue.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, Anushka, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Ranveer sues Anushka for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.a)Yes, because the books were in Ranveer’s possession, and trespass is a tort against possession and not against ownership.b)Yes, because she shouldn’t snatch things just like that. It is bad manners.c)No, because she was the rightful owner of the books.d)No, because the books do not belong to Ranveer, and no matter who they belong to, Ranveer cannot sue.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, Anushka, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Ranveer sues Anushka for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.a)Yes, because the books were in Ranveer’s possession, and trespass is a tort against possession and not against ownership.b)Yes, because she shouldn’t snatch things just like that. It is bad manners.c)No, because she was the rightful owner of the books.d)No, because the books do not belong to Ranveer, and no matter who they belong to, Ranveer cannot sue.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, Anushka, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Ranveer sues Anushka for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.a)Yes, because the books were in Ranveer’s possession, and trespass is a tort against possession and not against ownership.b)Yes, because she shouldn’t snatch things just like that. It is bad manners.c)No, because she was the rightful owner of the books.d)No, because the books do not belong to Ranveer, and no matter who they belong to, Ranveer cannot sue.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, Anushka, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Ranveer sues Anushka for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.a)Yes, because the books were in Ranveer’s possession, and trespass is a tort against possession and not against ownership.b)Yes, because she shouldn’t snatch things just like that. It is bad manners.c)No, because she was the rightful owner of the books.d)No, because the books do not belong to Ranveer, and no matter who they belong to, Ranveer cannot sue.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, Anushka, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Ranveer sues Anushka for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.a)Yes, because the books were in Ranveer’s possession, and trespass is a tort against possession and not against ownership.b)Yes, because she shouldn’t snatch things just like that. It is bad manners.c)No, because she was the rightful owner of the books.d)No, because the books do not belong to Ranveer, and no matter who they belong to, Ranveer cannot sue.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, Anushka, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Ranveer sues Anushka for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.a)Yes, because the books were in Ranveer’s possession, and trespass is a tort against possession and not against ownership.b)Yes, because she shouldn’t snatch things just like that. It is bad manners.c)No, because she was the rightful owner of the books.d)No, because the books do not belong to Ranveer, and no matter who they belong to, Ranveer cannot sue.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, Anushka, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Ranveer sues Anushka for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.a)Yes, because the books were in Ranveer’s possession, and trespass is a tort against possession and not against ownership.b)Yes, because she shouldn’t snatch things just like that. It is bad manners.c)No, because she was the rightful owner of the books.d)No, because the books do not belong to Ranveer, and no matter who they belong to, Ranveer cannot sue.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, Anushka, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Ranveer sues Anushka for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.a)Yes, because the books were in Ranveer’s possession, and trespass is a tort against possession and not against ownership.b)Yes, because she shouldn’t snatch things just like that. It is bad manners.c)No, because she was the rightful owner of the books.d)No, because the books do not belong to Ranveer, and no matter who they belong to, Ranveer cannot sue.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam