Suppaiya V. Ponniah Et Al.,

Present: Wood Renton J.    Sept.8,1909

SUPPAIYA v. PONNIAH et al.

 P. C. Matale, 31,154.

Criminal trespass-Intention to intimidate or annoy-Bona fide claim of right- Penal Code, s. 433.

An unlawful act of trespass committed with an intention to intimidate or annoy is criminal trespass, even if the trespasser had some ulterior object in committing it. Intention to intimidate or annoy will be presumed from foreknowledge that intimidation or annoyance will be the natural result of an act.

Wood Renton J.-When once an act of unlawful interference with the possession of property, under circumstances disclosing a real intention to intimidate or annoy the possessor, has been established, the offence of criminal trespass has been committed; and in such a case I should not be disposed to whittle away the effect of the law by curious refinements as to whether an ulterior object that the trespasser may have had in view constituted his primary or only his secondary intention. Nor do I see why, in regard to criminal trespass alone, the ordinary rule of law and of common sense, that a man may fairly be held to have intended the natural consequences of his acts, should be excluded.

THE facts are fully set out in the judgment.

Bawa, for accused, appellants.

Hayley, for respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

September 8, 1909. Wood Renton J.-

This case offers a typical illustration of a far too common sequel to a land action in Ceylon. The appellants, Ponniah and Dorakannu, together with three others, were convicted in the Police

1 This report is taken over from Balasingham's Report (Vol. 4, p. 157), where I had reported it before I was appointed Editor of the New Law Reports.

Court of Matale of criminal trespass. Ponniah was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, and to give security in Rs. 250 for good behaviour for six months. Dorakannu to pay a fine of Rs. 10. The facts as found by the learned Police Magistrate, are these. In 1904 Kirigalpottewatta, the land on which the criminal trespass was effected, was sold to Ponniah by one Boulton. At the time of, and for some years previous to, this sale the complainant had been in possession. Ponniah thereupon instituted an action against the complainant and some others in the District Court of Kandy (S. C. 238 D. C. F. Kandy, No. 17,343) claiming a declaration of title to the land in question. After two trials and several appeals to the Supreme Court the case dismissed. Ponniah there upon obtained a deed from one Muttiah, an added party in the case (D. C. Kandy, No. 17,343), for an undivided half of the land, and proceeded to assert his alleged title otherwise than with the sanction and assistance of the courts of law. On January 29 in the present year he commenced tentative operations. He came to the land with a party of ten or twelve others, did a little weeding, and plucked some coconuts, in spite of the protest of the complainant, who was in possession of the land, and had a right to possess it as the result of the civil litigation, and went away. The complainant obtained a report from the Arachchi, but, on his advice, took no immediate proceedings, as little damage had been done. Emboldened by the success of his preliminary foray, Ponniah returned to the land on February 5 with a gang of ten or fifteen men, including the second appellant, Dorakannu, who is apparently his servant, and the third, fourth, and fifth accused. The gang was armed with sticks and guns. At the time of the raid the complainant, his wife Papathie, and several coolies were working on the land. Ponniah pushed the woman, and told her to stop working. When the complainant protested, Ponniah said: " I have purchased the land; if you have any right, you had better go to Court." The complainant offered no resistance, being intimidated, as he said, by the presence of the armed gang, but went direct to the Police Court and filed the information in the present case. On Februar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document