1. Detinue and Conversion
Law of Torts-II
Unit-I (A)(ii)

2. Detinue: Introduction
1. It is a remedy for Trespass to goods
2. When the defendant is wrongfully detaining the goods belongiong to the
plaintiff and refuse to deliver on demand, the plaintiff can recover by
bringing action for detinue
3. Detinue refers to a cause of action available under tort law to recover
property wrongfully taken
4. The Remedy provided by English law is an action in detinue, i.e. specific
recovery of the detained movable property from the person’s possession
5. The person who wrongfully detained the movable property is known as a
wrongful detainer

3. Detinue: Meaning and Concept
• If the original possession is lawful but subsequently the goods are
wrongly detained, an action for detinue can be brought
• Eg., if the Bailee refuses to deliver the goods after bailment if over, he
is liable in detinue
• For the purpose of recovery of detained movable property the
plaintiff has to prove:
1. That he has the lawful right to possess the movable property
2. That the defendant wrongfully detained the possession of the movable
property

4. Detinue: Meaning and Concept
• Eg. if A gives his Mobile to B for repairs
• Later A pays for the service to the B, but even after receiving of the payment B
denied to give the Mobile to A
• This act of B is the act of detention
• In action for detinue, the defendant has to either return the specific
goods or pay its value to the plaintiff
• Therefore, a claim in detinue lies at the suit of a person who has
immediate right to possession of the goods against the person who is
in actual possession of them and who upon demand refuses to
deliver (Salmond)

5. Detinue: English Law
• In England
• The rule of detinue has been abolished by Torts (Interference with
Goods) Act, 1977
• However, the tort of conversion covers the issue of detinue
• Section 3 of Torts (Interference with Goods) Act, 1977 provides:
• “Where the goods are wrongfully detained by the defendant, the
plaintiff can still claim relief by way of order for the delivery of goods
or payment of damages equivalent to the value of goods and
consequential damages resulting from wrongful detention”

6. Detinue: Indian Position
1. In India ‘detinue’ has not been mentioned as separate wrong
2. Action for recovery of specific moveable property is provided under
section 7 and section 8 of Specific Relief Act 1963
3. Section 7 enables a person entitled to possession of property to
recover in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 1908
4. Under section 8 the plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession of
the goods and may claim speedier relief and recover the specific
movable property from the person who is in possession or control
of the property

7. Essentials of Recovery of Immediate Possession
under section 8 of Specific Relief Act
1. When the thing claimed is held by the defendant as the agent or
trustee of the plaintiff
2. When compensation in money would not afford the plaintiff
adequate relief for the loss of the thing claimed
• Illustration:
Z has got possession of box belonging to A’s family and of which A
is proper custodian
Z may be compelled to deliver the possession to A

8. Essentials of Recovery of Immediate Possession
under section 8 of Specific Relief Act
3. When it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the actual damage
caused by its loss
4. When the possession of the thing claimed has been wrongfully
transferred from the plaintiff
• Banshi V Goverdhan

9. Tort of Conversion: Unit-I (A)(ii)

10. Introduction
1. The tort of conversion occurs when one person interferes with the
personal property of another
2. It is the deprivation of another’s right to use or possess personal
property
3. It is an act, or complex series of acts, of willful interference, without
lawful justification, with any chattel in a manner in inconsistent
with the right of another, whereby that other is deprived of the use
and possession of it
4. If any individual without the proper authority takes possession of
another man’s goods with the sole intention of asserting dominion
over them is guilty of conversion

11. Conversion: Meaning and Concept
• Tort of conversion is also known as Trover
• It is done with the intention on the part of the defendant to deal with
the goods in such a way that amounts to denial od Plaintiff’s right to it
• Conversion can occur when someone, acting without consent of
owner, does any of the following with property:
Takes and fails to return your property
Sells your property
Substantially changes your property, like cutting down trees to use the wood
in construction
wrongfully sold, wrongfully retained, wrongfully destroyed
Severely damages or misuses your property

12. Conversion: Meaning and Concept
• Richardson v Atkinson
• M.S. Chokkaligam V State of Karnatka
• Moorgate Mercantile Co. Ltd. V Finch
• M’Combie v. Davies
• In this case the property of another person was taken through an assignment
from agent, having no authority to dispose of the property
• The person who took it refused to deliver it back to the principal even after
notice and demand by him
• Court held it as an act amounting to conversion

13. Conversion: Meaning and Concept
• Haryana Cotton Mills Co. Ltd v. B.B & C.I. Ry. Co
In this case it was held that the refusal or neglect by the railway company in
delivering the goods even after the demand was held to be liable in
conversion

14. Wrongful Intention not Necessary
• A person dealing with the goods of another person in wrongful way
does so at his own peril
• It is no defence that he honestly believe that he has right to deal with
the goods or he had no knowledge of owner’s right in them
• Roop Lal v Union of India
• Hollins v Fowler
• Consolidated Co. v Curtis

15. Wrongful Intention not Necessary
• If the person selling the goods sells them without any authority from
the owner, he will be liable for conversion
• The owner of the goods may recover the goods from the purchaser
• ‘nemo dat quod non habet’ means ‘no one can give what he has not
got’
• The buyer acquires no better title in goods than the owner
• In exceptional cases the rights of innocent buyers, who takes the
goods without having any notice regarding the seller’s defective title
may get good title in the goods

16. Finder of Goods
1. The finder of goods who did not trespass and is not a trespasser
acquires a right to keep it, against all but the true owner
2. When any object is found in or attached to a land, as between the
finder of the article and the lawful possessor of the land, the lawful
possessor of the land has the better title
3. When any object is found unattached on land, then in between the
finder and the lawful possessor, the lawful possessor of the land
will have a better title only if he exercises his exclusive control over
the land as to indicate an intention to control the land and anything
that might be found on it

17. Finder of Goods
• Waverley BC v. Fletcher
• In this case the defendant by the use of a metal detector discovered the
presence of an object below the surface and after digging upto some nine
inches he found a valuable medieval gold brooch
• Suit filed by the plaintiff (the local authority), owning the public park,
• It was held that the Plaintiff have the superior right to have the brooch as
against the finder

18. Finder of Goods
• Parker v. British Airways Board
In this case the plaintiff who was a passenger found a bracelet in the
executive lounge at London Airport
He handed the bracelet to an employee of the Airlines with a particular
direction that the bracelet be returned to him if it was not claimed by its
owner
The Airlines sold the bracelet and kept the proceeds instead of returning it
back to the plaintiff when not claimed by the owner
The plaintiff sued for conversion and was awarded as damages the value of
the bracelet as being the finder he was entitled to the bracelet against
everyone except the owner

19. Immediate Right of Possession
• The plaintiff must prove that he has right to immediate possession of
property or right to use it at the time of their conversion
• A plaintiff having such right can sue other party for conversion
• No action for conversion if plaintiff can not prove his right of
possession
• Parmananda Mohanty v Bira Behera and Others
• Against a person inpossesion the defendant can not take the defence
of jus terti

20. Immediate Right of Possession
• The defendant can not take advantage of the fact that some third
person has better title than plaintiff
• Even the owner of goods who has suspended his possession like
hiring them can not bring action
• Gordon v Harper
• Costello v. Chief Constable
In this case it was held that a thief or a receiver of stolen property
in possession has a possessory title which is good against all the
world except the true owner and so he can sue every other person
for conversion

21. Denial of Plaintiff’s Right to Goods is Necessary
• The defendant’s intended act must amount to denial to plaintiff’s
right to goods to which he is lawfully entitled
• Removing goods from one place to other place may be trespass but
not conversion
• Fouldes v Willoughby

22. Mode of Conversion
Conversion by Parting with Goods
• If any individual who is entrusted with the goods of another, put them
into the hands of a third person contrary to orders
• It will be termed as a conversion
• Any individual who without lawful justification deprives a person of
his goods by delivering them to someone else so as to change the
possession is guilty of conversion

23. Mode of Conversion
Conversion by Sale
• An individual who even though innocently obtains the possession of
certain goods and disposes of them will be guilty of conversion if
these goods were of another person who has fraudulently been
deprived of them
Conversion by Keeping
• When an individual has the possession of another’s goods and he
refuses to deliver then it will be act of conversion

24. Mode of Conversion
Conversion by Destruction
• If the object has been destroyed, for example by burning it, that
would be in a way depriving the plaintiff of his property even if the
defendant has not taken or considered of taking the goods for his
own use is conversion
• Richardson v Atkinson,
 in this case the defendant drew out some wine out of the plaintiff’s cask and
mixed water with the remainder to make good the deficiency
He was held liable of the conversion of the whole cask, as he had converted
the parts of its contents by taking them away and the remaining part by
destroying their identity

25. Defences
1. Lien
• It deals with both the general and specific case
• Demand and refusal are not considered as evidence of conversion, if
the party has a lien upon the chattel
• Eg., A refusal by a railway servant who is doubtful regarding the
consignor’s title to the goods which are to be delivered will not be a
conversion

26. Defences: Right of stoppage in transit
• This defence arises out of contract which is related to the sale of
goods
• Here the defendants can contend that the goods have in the transit of
the final act committed i.e. for what a person is being held for, he is
not the final holder of that chattel but is merely a medium or a single
entity of a larger chain or that he is not the final beneficiary of the
being committed

27. Defences: Denial of Plaintiff’s Right of
Property
1. In this particular defence, the defendant argues that the goods in
question belongs to him and that the plaintiffs have no right over it
2. It is applicable when the plaintiff was not in the possession of the
property but had only the rights to possess
3. In case where the plaintiff was in possession of the goods at the
time of conversion, the defendant cannot institute a claim for jus
terti

28. Defences: Distress
1. It is another defence where goods are taken under a distress or
under an execution
2. If the goods were taken away or it interfered with the enjoyment of
the property of the other, it was not deliberate but it was done so
because of something really more important in the ordinary sense
3. Law could accord more value to the other act than the negative act
of conversion on the part of the defendant

29. Defences: Sale in Market Overt
• As per the English law, sale of goods in market overt gives a good title
to the purchaser
• The purchaser cannot be sued for conversion if he parts with the
goods or refuses to give them up on demand; although the seller can
be sued if he has no title
• This doctrine is not applicable in India but such cases are governed by
sec. 27-30 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act

30. Other Defences
• Abandonment of property by plaintiff
• Consent or approval of plaintiff
• Statutes of limitation

31. Remedies: Conversion
• Damages for tortious causes of action such as conversion will
generally be compensatory
• Remedies for conversion may include:
Damages
• In general, the measure of the damage is calculated through the value
of goods at the time of conversion
• Where no particular damage has been sustained, and the goods have
not been tendered and received back after the action
• This refers to the market value of goods during the time of the
conversion

32. Remedies: Conversion
• If the defendant does not produce the goods, then the presumption
will be that it is of the highest value of any goods of that kind
• If the goods that have been returned, have fallen in price, the
difference in the price at the time of the return, will have to be
provided as damages
• Eg.,-If there is an action against a shop-owner for non-delivery of
goods, the measure of damages will be the value of the goods at the
date of non-delivery

33. Remedies
Abatement
• A person may be entitled to enter the land of another or take other
self-help measures, upon giving of due notice, to abate a nuisance
which substantially interferes with enjoyment of one’s land
• A person may lawfully retake goods which have been wrongfully
taken out of the person’s possession if such an order is made
Specific Restitution

34. Distinction between Trespass and Conversion
• The grounds of distinction between Trespass to Goods and Conversion:
• 1. Who can Commit:
1. Trespass is basically a wrong done to the actual possessor and therefore
cannot be committed by a person in possession
2. On the other hand, conversion is a wrong to the person entitled to
immediate possession
3. The actual possessor is frequently, but not always the person entitled to
immediate possession, and sometimes a person entitled to immediate
possession is allowed to sue in trespass so that the conversion may, but
does not necessarily, include trespass

35. Distinction between Trespass and Conversion
• 2. Adverse Possession
1. Trespass is without intending to exercise an adverse possession,
damaging or meddling with the goods of another
2. A conversion is referred to a breach made adversely in the continuity of
the owner’s domination over his goods though the goods may not be
hurt
3. Conversion occurs when one person intentionally takes another's
tangible personal property
4. Trespass occurs when one person intentionally interferes or intermeddles
with another's right of possession of tangible personal property without
actually taking it away

36. Distinction between Trespass and Conversion
• 3. Nature of Injury
• The gist of the action in trespass is the force and direct injury
inflicted; in conversion, it is the deprivation of the goods or their use
• Eg., If a person snatches my gold ring with a view to steal it, the act
amounts to both trespass and conversion. But if a person borrows my
ring for his use but later on sells it he will be held liable for conversion
only

37. THANK YOU