10th Novice Moot Court Competition, 2022

Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University

Before

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

[Under Article 136 Of Indian Constitution]

In The Matter of

MR. OBEROI………………………………………………………………(PETITIONER)

v.

MRS. PUJA SHARMA………………………………………………….....(RESPONDENT)

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Counsel Appearing On Behalf Of Respondant

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT

___________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENT
___________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………….
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………..
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………..
ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………...
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………...
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………...
ISSUE 1: Whether or not the weedkiller was a non-natural use of land? .......................
ISSUE 2: Whether or not the rule in Rylands v Fletcher could be used to obtain
Damages for personal injuries?.................................................................
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………...

___________________________________________________________________________
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF AUTHORITIES
__________________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. 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.
2. Their houses are adjacent to each other and their gardens are separated by a wooden
fence.
3. Mrs. Sharma has a hobby of raising different types of flowering plants in her garden
and a beautiful flower bed Tulip buds adjacent to the wooden fence. Mr. Oberoi was
fond of animals and would usually walk his dog “Shelby” in his garden.
4. In the rainy season, a lot of weeds started growing in and around the flower bed, so as
to get rid of them, Mrs. Sharma bought a powerful weedkiller known as
“WEEDKILL” manufactured by “Weedkill plc.” As it was a poisonous substance,
there were express warnings on the canister in which it was stated that weedkill was
poisonous and also clearly stated “Wash hands thoroughly after use”.
5. Mrs. Sharma sprayed weedkill liberally on her flower beds. However, the next day,
rain washed some of the weedkiller 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 garden and Shelby roamed around in that area.
6. The next day Reyana, Mr. Oberoi’s six year old daughter, noticed Shelby was lying
unconscious in the back room, later was admitted into the hospital due to his
deteriorating condition.
7. The medical evidence conclusively traced that the cause of illness to the weedkiller.
8. Mr. Oberoi brought an action against Mrs. Sharma based on rule laid in Rylands v
Fletcher. A Statement of claim was also issued against weedkill, the manufacturers of
the weed killer. However the action weedkill plc. was, struck down and there has been
no further appeal on weedkill plc.
9. In Lower Court, at first instance court held that claim failed on the grounds that the
use of the weed killer was a natural use of land and the rule in Ryalnds v Fletcher
could not be used to obtain damages.
10. A further appeal in the High Court was also dismissed, however, Mr. Oberoi was
granted leave to appeal in the Supreme Court.
 ISSUES RAISED

1. ISSUE 1: Whether or not the weedkiller was a natural use of land?

2. ISSUE 2: Whether or not the rule in Rylands v Fletcher could be used to obtain damages
for personal injuries?
__________________________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: Whether or not the weedkiller was non-natural use of land?

The Counsel on behalf of Respondent humbly submits before the Honourable Supreme Court
of India, that Mrs. Sharma, the Respondent, had a garden which had different types of
flowering plants and a beautiful flower bed of Tulip buds. As it was rainy season a lot of
weeds started growing in and around the flower bed, so to get rid of the weeds she purchased
a powerful weedkiller called “Weedkill”. It was clearly stated on the canister of the weedkill
that it was poisonous and there was an express warning of “Wash hands thoroughly after use”
on the canister. Mrs. Sharma had sprayed it liberally on her flower beds. Non-natural use of
land is not the ordinary use of land or abnormal use of land. Growing tulips and undertaking
the necessary measures for the destruction of certain environmental factors like weeds and
pests which interfere with the growth of afore mentioned tulips is a completely natural use of
one’s land, even though among those measures, use of a powerful, poisonous weedicide is
included. Because if the weedicide was weak, Mrs. Sharma’s tulip bed would be overgrown
with noxious weeds, and since the application of weedicide happened with her own land, the
case respondent is not liable to the ill-health of Mr. Oberoi’s dog Shelby. Gardening and
cultivating flowers are ordinary use of land. The fact that the weedicide was washed away by
rain into his property and caused his dog to become unconscious was of reasonable
unforseeability, and Mrs. Sharma could not anticipate that.

ISSUE 2: Whether or not the rule of Rylands v Fletcher could be used to obtain Damages for
personal Injuries?

The Council on behalf of Respondent humbly pleads before the hon’ble Supreme Court that
the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher could not be used to obtain damages for personal injury
because it is specifically decided by Blackburn J., who delivered judgement of the Court of
Exchequer Chamber, and in the House of the Lords, that to succeed in this tort, the
respondent must make non-natural use of her land. Also, Shelby the dog falling sick within
Mr. Oberoi’s property is an unnatural consequence of the act of application of weedicide by
Mrs. Sharma in her own property. It is a mere coincidence. Also, pets are considered as goods
under Sales of Goods Act, !930. The dog is unconscious, and it has not passed away yet,
making the question of mental agony due to null. There is no personal damage under law.

___________________________________________________________________________

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

___________________________________________________________________________

ISSUE 1: Whether or not the weedkiller was a non-natural use of land?

The counsel on behalf of Respondent humbly submits before the Hounorabke Supreme Court
that the usage of weedkiller was not an un-natural use of land.

It can be referred from Black’s Law Dictionary that “the right to use and enjoy property
according to one’s own liking or so as to derive a profit or benefit from it, including all that
makes it desirable or habitable, as light, air, and access; as distinguished from a mere right of
occupancy or possession.” The case of Reining v. Railroad Co. ( Super. Ct. ) 13 N. Y. Supp.
240.is also referred.

The council pleads that use of weedicide, even though it is strong, poisonous and comes with
a warning label, is a beneficial use of Mrs. Puja Sharma’s land. She was enjoying her own
property, at her own means by eliminating presence of dangerous weeds and insects which
would not only cause damage to her beautiful bed of tulips but also make her land
unhabitable. Therefore, the application ‘Weedkill’ cannot be deemed as an unnatural use of
her land. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim damages due to the tort of strict liability as
the falling unconscious of Mr. Oberoi’s dog Shelby due to the influence of the particular
weedicide was a mere coincidence and not a natural consequence of the action of application
of weedicide by Mrs. Shelby. The event of raining, of the ‘weedkill’ getting washed by rain
water to the other side of the fence and the event of Shelby the dog coming in contact with it
are huge leaps of fate, and the law does not grant a scope large enough that it will grant
damages where there was no reasonable foreseeability.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the definition of strict liability, with which the rule in
Rylands v. Fletcher is concerned, is “absolute legal responsibility for an injury that can be
imposed on the wrongdoer without proof of carelessness or fault.

Blackburn J., who decided Rylands v. Fletcher states that “ The rule of law is that the person
who for his own purpose brings on his own land and collects and keeps there anything likely
to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril; and if he does not do so is prima facie
answerable for all damage which arises as the natural consequence of its escape.”

Mrs. Sharma was not using her land unnaturally and the event whereby Shelby the dog falls
ill is not a natural consequence of her application of ‘weedkill’ in her own garden.

ISSUE 2 : Whether or not the rule of Rylands v Fletcher could be used to obtain Damages for
personal Injuries?

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, any wrong or damage done to another either in his
person, rights, reputation is the definition of injury. In the given case, Shelby the dog being a
property under Sales of Property Act, 1930, which states,