Read the following passage and the question.
The tort of trespass can be defined as an unjustifiable physical interference of land in the possession of one party by another. The tort of trespass requires essentially only the possession of land by the plaintiff and just encroachment in some way by the defendant. There requires no force, unlawful intention, or damage nor the breaking of an enclosure. The express mention of the word interference is mainly there to imply permission. Permission to encroach onto one’s land can either be obtained by the person in possession or under authority. One of the most important ingredients of a tort of trespass is the fact that the land in question which has been encroached upon essentially needs to be in the direct possession of the plaintiff and not just mere physical presence on it. Another essential provision of the tort of trespass includes the directness of the act. If the act is direct i.e. arising out of the natural consequences of the act of the defendant then it is valid. If the consequences of the act are a result of a remote effect of an act then it is not held to be a valid suit. Trespass, be it against a human or his property, needs to establish the fact that there was a common goal i.e. the objective is that there needs to be an intervention with the person's right to retain land or the fact of maintaining a right to personal dignity.
The tort of trespass can be safely segregated into two halves which are Criminal trespass and trespass to land or property. The principle in the cases of both is the same i.e. there should be a wrongful interference. In the case of Land trespass, it is to be noted that though everyone has a right to the enjoyment of property one cannot sue for aerial trespass if the trespass is such that it doesn't clash with the ordinary enjoyment of Land. Furthermore, in the case of land, it is to be seen if the act is direct or indirect i.e. if the trespass is not the natural consequence of the act done. Then the tort does not apply. Mistake or ignorance is not a remedy to trespass.
Question - Vishudh erects a tree that leads to the growth of branches and boughs and roots onto the land of the Praveen. Praveen can bring an action of-
Tort of trespass
Tort of nuisance
Both trespass and nuisance
Praveen cannot bring any action as it is an Act of God
Vishudh can be held liable for the tort of a nuisance but not trespass. There is a very thin line between tort of nuisance and trespass. Trespass is encroachment upon property whereas nuisance is interference upon another’s right to enjoy his property. Here, branches did not encroach upon property but caused interference in freely enjoying one’s property.