Each question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this section to test your knowledge of law.

PRINCIPLE: Trespass to land means direct interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land of another person or doing the same through some tangible object(s).

FACTS: 'A' throws some stones upon his neighbour's (B's) premises.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

The correct answer is: 'A' has committed trespass.

Let us carefully analyze this problem by breaking it down into its key components — the Principle and the Facts — and then applying one to the other.

Understanding the Principle:

The given principle defines Trespass to Land as having two essential elements:

1. There must be a direct interference with the possession of land.
2. This interference must occur without lawful justification.
3. Crucially, trespass can be committed not only by a person physically entering the land, but also by doing the same through some tangible object(s).

This third point is the most important part of the principle for this question. It explicitly extends the definition of trespass beyond mere physical entry of a person — it includes situations where a person causes a tangible object to interfere with another's land.

Analyzing the Facts:

'A' throws some stones (tangible objects) upon his neighbour B's premises (B's land, which is in B's possession).

Applying the Principle to the Facts:

Let us check each element of trespass:

- Direct interference? Yes. 'A' actively and intentionally threw stones, causing them to land on B's premises. This is a direct act, not a remote or consequential one.
- With the possession of land? Yes. The stones landed on B's premises, which are in B's possession.
- Without lawful justification? Yes. No facts suggest 'A' had any legal right or permission to throw stones onto B's land.
- Through a tangible object? Yes. Stones are clearly tangible, physical objects.

All elements of the principle are satisfied. 'A' did not need to physically enter B's land himself — the principle explicitly covers trespass committed through tangible objects, and the stones are exactly such objects.

Why the other options are incorrect:

- Option 2 ("'A' has not committed trespass, as he has not entered B's premises") is wrong because it ignores the second limb of the principle, which clearly states trespass can also be committed through tangible objects. Physical entry is not the only mode.
- Option 3 ("'A' has committed nuisance") is incorrect because the principle given does not discuss nuisance at all, and the act of throwing stones is a direct interference — which is the hallmark of trespass, not nuisance (which typically involves indirect or continuous interference).
- Option 4 ("None of the above") is incorrect because Option 1 is clearly the right derivation.

Conclusion:

By throwing stones — tangible objects — directly onto B's premises without any lawful justification, 'A' has committed trespass to land as per the given principle. The act of physical entry by the person himself is not mandatory; interference caused through tangible objects suffices.