MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS_______________________________________________________2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES________________________________________________________3

TABLE OF CASES_______________________________________________________________3

BOOKS REFFERED______________________________________________________________4

STATUTES_________________________________________________________________4

LEGAL DATABASE_________________________________________________________4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION__________________________________________________5

STATEMENT OF FACTS__________________________________________________________6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES_________________________________________________________7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS_____________________________________________________8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED_______________________________________________________9
ISSUE I. IS THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY PARENTS
MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE II. HAS MR. PAPA RANJIT HELD RADHE AND CHULBUL CAPTIVE?

ISSUE III. CAN MR. PAPA RANJIT COLLECT MONEY FROM RADHE AND CHULBUL

PRAYER__________________________________________________________________________14

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

1
 MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25

ABBREVIATIONS

HON’BLE Honourable
SC Supreme Court
Art. Article
COI Constitution Of India
St. State
AIR All India Reporter
SCC Supreme Court Cases

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

2
MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

CASE LAWS PAGE NO.

R vs. Chard 10

Ram Lakhan Singh v. State of Uttar 12

Pradesh
Bishan Das v. State of Punjab 13

Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja v. 15

Maruti Corporation & Ors.
K. Bhattacharjee vs National 15
Insurance Co. Ltd.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

3
 MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFFERED

1. Constitutional law of India, by J.N. Pandey, 10th Edition, Central Law agency

STATUTES

1. Constitution of India,1950
2. Law of the land

LEGAL DATABASE

1. www.scconline.com
2. www.manupatrafast.com

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

4
 MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Article 226(1) of COI,1950

Every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it
exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases,
any Government, within those territories directions, orders or 3[writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any
of them,][for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other
purpose.
[(1-A) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part,
arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or
authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories."; was inserted after
15th Amendment]
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, this was
amended to include clause (1A). It states that the High Court, whose territorial jurisdiction
the cause of action originates under, may also have the ability to issue directives, orders,
or writs to any government, authority, or person, even if their seat or place of abode is
beyond the high court’s territorial jurisdiction.]
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part,
arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the scat of such Government or
authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay
or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under
clause (1), without—
(a)furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea
for such interim order; and
(b)giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court
for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in
whose favor such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall
dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is
received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever
is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry
of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not
so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be,
the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

5
 MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Chulbul and Radhe have a close friendship. On a pleasant evening, the two friends made the
decision to cross the river to pick mangoes from the “Aquarina” farm. The owner of the farm,
Mr. Papa Ranjit, is a man of values and morals who abides thoroughly by the law.

2. As a passionate farmer, Mr. Papa Ranjit has raised cows and buffaloes on the property in
addition to planting a variety of fruits and vegetables. Curd, ghee, and other dairy products are
made from the milk supplied by the cows and buffaloes housed in the sheds.

3. Radhe and Chulbul went into Mr. Papa Ranjit’s land. They picked a few mangoes after scaling
the mango trees. Chulbul then ascended the coconut tree and harvested several green coconuts.

4. After that, they went into one of the sheds and used the milk that was kept there and the
mangoes they had picked to make a delicious mango shake for themselves. Then they used the
heavy knife stored inside to chop the coconuts.

5. Mr. Papa Ranjit caught them just as they were ready to sip the water from it. Until Radhe and
Chulbul paid for the loss he had suffered as a result of them, Mr. Ranjit gave all of his guards’
orders not to let them leave the farm’s grounds.

6. Within the limits of the farm, the two companions were contentedly wandering around. To get
their children out of captive Radhe and Chulbul’s parents have petitioned the Orissa High
Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

6
 MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I. IS THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY PARENTS

MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE II. HAS MR. PAPA RANJIT HELD RADHE AND CHULBUL CAPTIVE?

ISSUE III. CAN MR. PAPA RANJIT COLLECT MONEY FROM RADHE AND
CHULBUL

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

7
 MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I. IS THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY PARENTS

MAINTAINABLE?

The Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the petitioner is not maintainable because Radhe &
Chulbul had trespassed into the private property of the respondent and voluntarily caused loss
and they might have flown away, so they were kept inside the boundary. Thus, the respondent
can recover the loss from the petitioners by reasonable means.

ISSUE II. HAS MR. PAPA RANJIT HELD RADHE AND CHULBUL CAPTIVE?

The respondent being the owner of the farm has a legal right to protect his property and
demanded compensation for the actual damages incurred by the unauthorized actions of the
petitioners. And, the respondent’s actions are not meeting the full definition of holding
someone captive, he just followed law of the land and took steps for recovery of actual damage.

ISSUE III. CAN MR. PAPA RANJIT COLLECT MONEY FROM RADHE AND
CHULBUL?

The present-day common law prescribes for the punishment of trespass that the owner has the
right to recovery of loss amount and damages from any such person or trespassers that caused
such damage. The same provision prescribes that the owner may take any reasonable steps to
recover the same. It is directly implied that the respondent has the right and he can collect
money from the petitioners.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

8
 MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. IS THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY PARENTS MAINTAINABLE?

Habeas corpus is a remedy provided to release of individuals who are unlawfully detained and allows
a person to challenge the legality of their detention or imprisonment. The writ of habeas corpus, also
known as the ‘Great Writ of Liberty’, has its roots in the Magna Carta of 1215, the English common
man’s fountain of liberty, wherein the principle that ‘no free man shall be seized or imprisoned except
by lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land’. Detention becoming illegal if a detention
is illegal because it doesn’t follow statutory mandates, a writ of habeas corpus can be entertained. So,
if we interpret the above-mentioned meaning using the Literal Rule of Interpretation then --

Literal Rule of Interpretation: -

The literal rule basically looks into what the law says, not what the law means. It considers the original
meaning of the word. Here judges cannot come up with the words and interpret them according to the
case basis. When the language used is simple and the words have only one meaning to it at that time
judges will use this literal rule of interpretation.

When there are no two meanings to a word. If any word in the statute has a special meaning to it,
usually it will be mentioned in the interpretation clause, all technical words are given ordinary meaning
if the statute has not specified it. Usage of the appropriate words is very important and makes a lot of
difference in the meaning of the context.

Courts should never go beyond the intention of the legislators. When the words of the statute are in
themselves precise and unambiguous, then there is no need to explain that in the natural or ordinary
sense.

As for filing a Habeas Corpus the condition i.e., detention of an individual is a must or free movement
should be curtailed. But as per the facts mentioned in Para – III, Radha and Chulbul were happily
moving around the farm inside the boundary so this clearly states that they were not being detained by
the respondent, but just they were not allowed to move out of the area so that the respondent can claim
the compensation for the loss and damage accrued to his property for their unlawful trespass.

If we interpret as per the literal rule of interpretation then the natural or ordinary meaning of Habeas
corpus is to be held for interpreting.

In this case it is essential to determine whether the detention of Radhe and Chulbul by Mr. Papa Ranjit

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

9
 MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25

is lawful and justified under the law of the land. The petitioners entered the respondent’s property
without consent and caused actual damage by plucking food and consuming milk without
authorization. Their actions are classified as trespass under the law of the land, as the lawful owner of
the property, the respondent has the right to protect his property and seek compensation for any actual
damage caused. The law of the land also allows the owner to adopt reasonable procedure and manner
to collect the loss amount along with compensation from the trespassers. The respondent instructed his
guards to prevent the petitioners from leaving the premises until the compensation is paid. This action
was taken in good faith to ensure that his rights as a property holder is upheld and permissible under
the law of the land and most importantly the guards were instructed to ensure that the boys didn’t leave
the premises unless they pay the compensation rather than using force for the same. In the case of R
vs. Chard1, the court considered the authority of the person detaining an individual in lawful custody
if the person can demonstrate that they are acting under legal authority (such as by the order of a court
or through a statute) and can be used as a valid defence against the writ of Habeas corpus. As it is
clearly mentioned in the law of the land to adopt any reasonable procedure to collect the loss amount
along with compensation as the punishment for trespass, the action done by the respondent stands valid
and lawful. Thus, the petition filed under the writ of habeas corpus by the petitioners is not
maintainable.

1. 1783 99 ER 535

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

10
 MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

2. HAS MR. PAPA RANJIT HELD RADHE AND CHULBUL CAPTIVE?

The law of the land provides the definition of the captive as restricting movement of a person by use
of force by another person. Here, in this case the respondent has not physically restrained Radhe and
Chulbul in a specific space. They were free to move around the farm and it is also mentioned in the
fact that the two friends were happily wandering inside the boundaries of the farm which indicates an
absence of strict physical captivity. As per the law of the land the definition of captive is not satisfied
as to the measures taken by the respondent. The respondent being the owner of the farm has a legal
right to protect his property and demanded compensation for the actual damages incurred by the
unauthorized actions of the petitioners.

The petitioners entered into farm without permission, used his farm produces without his consent. This
could be considered as a form of trespass and theft. The respondent also gave opportunity to the
trespassers for payment of loss amount along with compensation amount for the actual damages and
when the trespassers didn’t pay the same the respondent was forced to take actions as per the law of
the land to recover the actual damage, which is more specifically mentioned in the law of the land as
“the trespasser is liable to compensate the actual damage caused along with an additional fine of
Rs.l,00,000/- to the owner or person in actual possession of the property. The Owner may adopt any
reasonable procedure to collect the loss amount along with compensation from the trespasser(s)”.

They had trespassed into the respondent’s property and caused actual damage to the property

mentioned in Para -III of the facts. Trespass and Actual Damage is defined as ---

Trespass- Any person is a trespasser who, without the consent of the owner or the person in actual
possession of the land or home or any other such property, enters into his property and causes any form
of actual damage to the property.

The purpose behind restricting the petitioner’s departure is that they provide compensation. This aligns
with a property owner’s right to seek reparation of damages rather than an intention to hold them
captive and more over he has not limited their movement in a single location or kept them under
continuous watch and as law of the land defines ‘captive’ as use of force by one person to restraint the
movement of another. Here no such instance of such act is present. Thus, the respondent’s actions are
not meeting the full definition of holding someone captive, he just followed law of the land and took
steps for recovery of actual damage.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

11
 MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Ram Lakhan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh2, in this case, the Supreme Court dealt with the concept
of detention by a private individual for recovery of damages The Court ruled that while property
owners have the to seek recovery for trespass and damage, they should avoid detention to secure
compensation, as it could amount to unlawful confinement. The court's reasoning emphasized that
detaining an individual against their will for recovery is excessive; however, in Mr. Ranjit’s case,
Radhe and Chulbul were not physically restrained or forcefully confined and were instead free to move
within the farm premises.

2. W.P.(C) No. 933 2014

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

12
 MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Bishan Das v. State of Punjab3, this case involved allegations of trespass by government officials on
private property. The Court found that unauthorized entry, even by state officials, is unlawful without
due process. This case supports the principle that trespass is unlawful, and the property owner is within
his rights to seek a fair recovery. Mr. Ranjit’s restriction is an attempt to protect his right to
compensation for the unauthorized use and damage caused by Radhe and Chulbul.

Radhe and Chulbul were not physically confined or restrained, but allowed to roam freely
within the farm's boundaries. They were not subjected to any restrictions beyond those necessary for
fair compensation. The respondent's actions did not meet the threshold for unlawful confinement, as
his restriction was limited to secure compensation for damage caused by their unauthorized use of his
resources.

3. 1961 AIR 1570

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

13
 MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

3. CAN MR. PAPA RANJIT COLLECT MONEY FROM RADHE AND CHULBUL?
Mr. Papa Ranjit can collect money from Radhe and Chulbul as compensation for their actions. Radhe
and Chulbul entered Mr. Papa Ranjit’s farm without his consent, making them trespassers under the
definition provided.

They caused actual damage by:

• Plucking mangoes and coconuts without permission, depriving Mr. Ranjit of their value.

• Using milk from the shed, which was stored for making other milk products.

• Using farm resources like the knife and the premises for their personal enjoyment without
authorization.

Punishment for Trespass- The trespasser is liable to compensate the actual damage caused along with an
additional fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to the owner or person in actual possession of the property. The Owner may
adopt any reasonable procedure to collect the loss amount along with compensation from the trespasser(s).

Mr. Ranjit instructed his guards not to allow Radhe and Chulbul to leave the farm until they
compensated for the loss. This action aligns with the reasonable procedure allowed under the law to
recover compensation for damages caused by trespassers. Radhe and Chulbul’s movements are
restricted as a consequence of their unlawful actions, not through arbitrary force. When you act or do
something with malicious intent or malicious intentions, you are deliberately doing something that will
cause injury to another or be detrimental to them. The respondent had clearly stated that his actions
were not punitive. Instead, he acted out of concern for his property and sought to educate the children
on respecting others' rights. He intended to foster rather than to punish.

Mr. Ranjit has taken a lawful and reasonable step to ensure compliance with compensation
requirements. Radhe and Chulbul are free to leave upon paying the compensation and fine, making
their restriction conditional and not unlawful. Mr. Ranjit, as the rightful owner of the farm, has the
right to protect his property and seek compensation for any losses incurred due to trespass. Allowing
Radhe and Chulbul to leave without compensating for the damage would undermine his property rights
and the law governing trespass. Mr. Ranjit is described as a man of morals and principles. Holding
Radhe and Chulbul accountable for their actions not only enforces legal principles but also instills a
sense of responsibility in the actions. Mr. Papa Ranjit has acted lawfully in restricting Radhe and
Chulbul’s movement within the farm boundaries. He is justified in collecting compensation for the
actual damages they caused and the additional fine for trespassing. It is reasonable to take into account

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

14
 MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

that the one who has caused damages must pay for the loss incurred. As both the petitioners caused
damage, they must pay the compensation even if done inadvertently. The trespass, the damage and
conversion for enjoyment was voluntary so it be the compensation and fine. In Kishorsinh Ratansinh
Jadeja v. Maruti Corporation & Ors.4 it was held that the owner of a property has a right to protect
his property from unauthorized intrusion or misuse. Trespassers can be held liable for damages caused
to the property.

In K. Bhattacharjee vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.5 it was held by the supreme court that, a person
whose actions result in harm is duty-bound to compensate the injured party under the principle of
corrective justice. The common law considers that unjust benefits derived from another’s property can
make the recipient liable to pay for the benefits received. While the petitioners acted unlawfully by
trespassing, they nevertheless consumed goods (milk, mangoes, and coconuts) that the respondent
lawfully produced on his farm. By enjoying these benefits, they created an obligation to compensation
for the losses incurred.

4. AIR 2009 SC 2882

5. (2003) 2 SCC 244

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

15
 MADHUSUDHAN LAW UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT, 2024-25

PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Counsel on behalf of the respondent humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court thatit may be pleased to
adjudge and declare to:
1. That the petition of writ to be dismissed.
2. That the compensation to be awarded.

AND/OR

Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience. And for this act of kindness, the counsel
for the accused shall duty-bound forever pray.

Sd/-
Place:

Date: Counsels for the respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

16