Ramanuja Mudali v M. Gangan

• A dispute arose in the context of protecting property against an intrusion or threat
• The defending party's response was assessed against the actual severity of the threat faced
• The question was whether the force used remained within the bounds private defence permits

1. Whether the defensive response used to protect property remained proportionate to the actual threat, or exceeded what private defence justifies.

• Private defence requires the response to remain proportionate to the actual threat faced
• Excessive force, exceeding what was genuinely necessary to repel the specific danger, is not justified
• The presence of some initial threat or provocation does not license an unlimited or disproportionate response

Private defence is confined to proportionate, necessary responses to imminent unlawful threats. Where the defensive response exceeds what the actual severity of the threat warranted, this excess falls outside the defence's scope, and liability may attach for the disproportionate portion.