NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

22LLB042

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

10TH NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

APPELATE JURISDICTION
[APPEAL NO. 542]

In the matter of

MR. OBEROI……………………………..………………………………………..A PPELLANT

VERSUS

MRS. PUJA SHARMA……………………………………………………………...R ESPONDENT

~ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS ~

 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................................. 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................................................. 6
ISSUES RAISED ............................................................................................................................................................. 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ......................................................................................................................................... 9
PRAYER ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11
 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

& AND
¶ PARAGRAPH
 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. Rylands v Fletcher
2. Tennant v Earl of Glasgow
3. Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd
4. Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
5. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India

STATUTES

1. Article 133 of the Indian Constitution of 1950.

ONLINE DATABASE

1. Manupatra.
2. SCC Online.
3. Lexis Nexis.
 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant has humbly approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court via a special leave petition filed under
Article 133 of the Constitution of India, 1950. [hereinafter referred to as “Constitution”] The present
memorandum contains the facts, contentions and arguments of the instant case.

133. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to civil matters.

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding
of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies under article 134A-

(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; and

(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in article 132, any party appealing to the Supreme Court under clause (1) may
urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this
Constitution has been wrongly decided.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall, unless Parliament by law otherwise provides,
lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one Judge of a High Court.
 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mrs. Puja Sharma is a software developer working at M/s Jodrej in Mumbai, Maharashtra. She resides in the
posh locality called Juhu. Her neighbour is Mr. Oberoi, a businessman. Their houses are adjacent to each other
and their gardens are separated by a wooden fence. Mrs. Sharma has a hobby of raising different types of
flowering plants in her garden and had a beautiful flower bed Tulip bud adjacent to the wooden fence. On the
other hand. Mr. Oberoi was fond of animals and would usually walk his dog ‘Shelby’ in his garden. In the
rainy season a lot of weeds started growing in and around the flower bed, to get rid of them, Mrs. Sharma
purchased a powerful weed killer called ‘Weedkill’. Since it was a poisonous substance there were express
warnings on the canister which stated that ‘Weedkill’ was poisonous and also clearly stated “Wash hands
thoroughly after use”. Mrs. Sharma sprayed ‘Weedkill’ liberally on her flower beds. However, later that day,
rain washed some of the weed killer under the fence onto Mr. Oberoi’s Garden and some plants were infected.
There were no visible signs of the weedkiller on Mr. Oberoi’s plants and Shelby roamed around in that area.
The following day Mr. Oberoi’s six-year-old daughter, Reyana, noticed that Shelby was lying unconscious in
the back room and was later admitted into the hospital due to his deteriorating condition. The medical evidence
conclusively traced the cause of the illness to the weed killer.

An action was brought on by Mr. Oberoi against Mrs. Sharma based on the rule laid down in Rylands v.
Fletcher. A statement of claim was also issued against ‘Weedkill’ the manufacturers of the weed killer. The
action against Weedkill plc. was, however, struck down and there has been no further appeal on this point.

At the first instance the Lower Court held that the claim failed on the grounds that the use of the weed killer
was a natural use of the land and that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher could not be used to obtain damages.
 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER COULD BE USED TO OBTAIN DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL
INJURY?

2. WHETHER THE USE OF WEEDKILLER NATURAL USE OF LAND?

 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER COULD BE USED TO OBTAIN DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL
INJURY?

The counsel on the behalf of the respondents humbly submits that; Raylands v Fleacher is not applicable
because it was the natural use of land. Hence the personal damages cannot be obtained on the basis of
Raylands v Fleacher.

2. WHETHER THE USE OF WEEDKILLER NATURAL USE OF LAND?

The counsel on the behalf of the respondents humbly submit that the use of weed killer is the natural se of
land as it was Mrs. Puja Sharma’s property and planting is the usual use of land and so is the use of weed
killer for the maintenance of it. Mrs. Puja Sharma is not liable under non-natural use of land as growing
plants and using insecticides comes under natural use of land as the lower court and the high court held
that the claim failed on the grounds that the use of the weed killer was a natural use of the land.
 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THAT THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER COULD NOT BE USED TO OBTAIN DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL
INJURY.

¶1. The council disagrees that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher could be used to obtain damages for personal

Injury. Respondent is not liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher1 if:

1. He is the occupier of land;

2. He uses that land in a non-natural way;

3. As a result of this a dangerous thing escapes the land;

4. The escape of that dangerous thing causes damage to another; and

5. The kind of damage caused was reasonably foreseeable.

Here the respondent used the land naturally hence Raylands v. Fletcher cannot be applied.

Raylands v. Flecher cannot be applied the so the plaintiff cannot obtain damages from that.

¶2. As was held in the case of Tennant v Earl of Glasgow,2 “Circumstances which no human foresight can
provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility, and which when they
do occur, therefore, are calamities that do not involve the obligation of paying for the consequences that may
result from them.” Thus, the respondent, contends that the rain and act, was not in reasonable foresight of the
respondent. In no way, could have Mrs. Puja, thought or would have reasonably foreseen, that the insecticides
would cause the death of a person. She never intended to cause harm, nor worked actively to kill or harm the
dog. Additionally, in the case of Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd.,3 the test of reasonable foresight was led down
where the court held that if a person cannot foresee the damage, he cannot be held liable for the same. Hence,
it is conclusively submitted that the act of injury was not within the reasonable foresight of the Respondent.

1
Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 1 Exch 265.
2
Tennant v Earl of Glasgow
3
Re Polemis and Furnace Ltd
 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2. THAT THE USE OF WEEDKILLER NATURAL USE OF LAND.

¶3. The council on the behalf of the respondent humbly submits that the use of weedkiller is the natural use of
land. Use is non-natural if the defendant was doing something which he ought to have realised, judging by the
standards of the relevant place or time, was ‘extraordinary’ and ‘unusual’ and which gave rise to an
exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief if there was an escape: Transco v Stockport Metropolitan
Borough Council4.

The use of weedkiller is the natural usage of land because when people indulge into activities like gardening
they use weed killers to kill the weed which was spoiling0 their garden.

¶4. To successfully bring a claim under the Rule of non-natural use of land there must be an escape of a
dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of land, for which the occupier will be liable for the damage
caused to another as a result of that escape. In the cases of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union
of India5.

¶5. This rule applies only to non-natural user of the land and it does not apply to things naturally on the land
or where the escape is due to an act of God and an act of a stranger or the default of the person injured or
where the thing which escapes is present by the consent of the person injured or in certain cases where there
is statutory authority. Similarly, in the case presented before the court the use of insecticides for flower beds
does not comes under the unnatural use of land. This the judgement passed by the both lower court and higher
court for this case.

4
Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1.
5
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India,
 NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities citied, the respondent
Respectfully requests this Hon’ble Court to adjudge and be pleased to:
 Hold the petition not maintainable and dismiss the petition thereof,
 Hold the claim of the Mr. Oberoi not maintainable.

And/or pass any other order in favour of the respondent that it may deem fit in the light of justice,
equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

Sd/-
Counsel For Respondents