Question

Principle: Interfering with another's goods in such a way as to deny the latter's title to the goods amounts to conversion and it is a civil wrong.

Facts: Ram went to the bicycle stand to a park his bicycle and he found the stand fully occupied. Ram removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to Shyam. It was rather negligent on the part of Ram and he was in fact in a hurry to get into his office. Somebody came on the way and took away Shyam's cycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the cycle was not parked inside the stand. Shyam filed a suit against Ram for conversion.

विकल्प

• Shyam would succeed because Ram's act led to the stealing of his bicycle

• Shyam would not succeed, because Ram did not take away the bicycle himself

• Ram would not be held responsible for the negligence of the watchman

• None of the above

Answer 1

Shyam would succeed because Ram's act led to the stealing of his bicycle

Explanation:

The principle clearly states that interference with another's good which leads to denial of title to goods will hold the interferer liable. Thus Shyam will succeed.  (Please check if the title to the goods was denied in  the given case). The answer should be "Shyam would succeed because Ram's act led to the stealing of his bicycle" as though there was interference with goods, the denial of the title of the other party is not the case.