2175P

IN THE
LEARNED DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT OF DELHI
AT DELHI

IN THE MATTERS OF

AMAN GUPTA
PLAINTIFF
[REPRESENTED BY HIMSELF]

v.

MR. RAMAN CHADDHA

DEFENDANT
[REPRESENTED BY HIMSELF]

CIVIL SUIT NO. – XXX/2023

[UNDER SECTION 6 AND 9 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908]

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................iii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.........................................................................................iv

STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................v

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION..........................................................................................vii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS............................................................................................viii

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................................1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF.............................................................................................................9

ii
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Bamfors v. Turnley.....................................................................................................................7
Biharilal vs. James Maclean......................................................................................................4
Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores Ltd......................................................................................8
Coventry v. Lawrence...........................................................................................................9, 10
Crump v. Lambert......................................................................................................................3
Davidson v. Isham......................................................................................................................4
Elliotson v. Feetham...................................................................................................................3
Fish v. Dodge.............................................................................................................................3
Gaunt v. fynney...........................................................................................................................2
Harrison v. St. Mark98 Church..................................................................................................3
IBID............................................................................................................................................8
Inchbald v. Robinson..................................................................................................................3
Raj Singh vs. Gajraj Singh.........................................................................................................5
Sadasiva v. Rangappa................................................................................................................5
Soltau v. De Held.......................................................................................................................3
State of UP v. Raja Ram Jaiswal...............................................................................................5
Thompson-Schwab v. Costaki....................................................................................................7

Statutes
Section 11, the Municipality Act of 1899..................................................................................4

Other Authorities
Wood Nuis, Black Law Dictionary, 2nd edition..........................................................................1

iii
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Aman Gupta, Plaintiff in Civil Suit no. XXX/2023 has filed a suit in the District and session
Court of Delhi under s. 6 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Order VII Rule 1
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The plaintiff most humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Learned Court.

iv
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Mr. Aman Gupta is a resident of Delhi staying in ‘Evergreen Apartments’ in

Model Town. He resides on the fourth floor of one a building with his parents and
a sister. He is pursuing law from Delhi Law College. He had been an outstanding
and consistently hard-working student and was able to hold the highest CGPA
throughout the five years.
II. On 20th February, 2023, the final year students had a recruitment drive organized
through the College for which the students were required to appear in an online
interview between 3:00PM to 6:00PM. As a Batch topper with outstanding
academic credentials as well as being a brilliant student, Aman’s chances to make
through the interview were very high.
III. However, Mr. Raman Chaddha, residing in a flat on the fourth floor in the
building opposite Aman’s flat in the same society had her daughter’s marriage
scheduled for 21st February, 2023. Owing to the same, Mr. Chaddha and his
family had been playing high music for past few weeks on different occasions and
intervals leading up to the night of 19th February, 2022 as well when Aman was
preparing for the next day’s interview. Hearing loud music, Aman’s father called
Mr. Chaddha and explained to him that Aman had an important interview next
day. He humbly requested Mr. Chaddha to keep the volume slightly low but all in
vain.
IV. Aman’s parents also reported to the issue to the Secretary of the Housing Society.
However, even after repeated communications from Aman’s family as well as
telephonic warnings issued by the Society’s Secretary, Mr. Chaddha’s family
would continue playing loud music.
V. Next day, he got ready for his interview that was scheduled between 3:00 to
6:00PM. However, when Aman’s turn to appear for the interview arrived, loud
music sound emerged from Mr. Chaddha’s house. Aman’s parents tried calling
Mr. Chaddha to request him to cooperate for a little duration of few minutes until
the interview was going on. However, Mr. Chaddha did not respond. During the
interview, Aman faced difficulty due to the loud music. He faced trouble in
understanding the speech of the interviewers and their questions. Due to the same,

v
 he was unable to give apt responses to the recruiters. Also, the recruiters were
annoyed at constant disturbance from Aman’s end due to which they also failed to
understand Aman’s speech. This resulted in Aman’s rejection from the post for
which Aman had been preparing for several months.
VI. As a consequence, Aman proceeds to sue Mr. Chaddha claiming damages for
nuisance caused over several days leading to continuous annoyance and
disturbance to Aman and also leading to a significant loss of opportunity.

Hence the present suit.

vi
 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATIOS

I. WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE FOR NUISANCE?

II. WHETHER THERE WAS WRONGFUL DISTURBANCES OF EASEMENTS?
III. WHETHER THERE WAS WRONGFUL ESCAPE OF DELETERIOUS
SUBSTANCE (NOISE) INTO PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY?

vii
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. DEFENDANT IS LIABLE FOR NUISANCE

Physical discomfort is a kind of private nuisance which was caused to Aman. In the case of
physical discomfort, the act complained of must be in excess of the natural and ordinary
course of enjoyment of the property materially interfering with the ordinary comforts of
human existence.

II. WRONGFUL DISTURBANCES OF EASEMENTS

A private nuisance is caused when a person is doing something on their own land which they
are lawfully entitled to do, but becomes a nuisance when the consequences of the action
spread to the area of a neighbour. Nuisance is a balance between the competing rights of the
land owner to use the land as they choose, and the right of the neighbour not to have their
enjoyment of land interfered with. Here, Mr. Raman Chaddha was interfering with the rights
of enjoyment of property of Aman.

III. WRONGFUL ESCAPE OF DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCE (NOISE) INTO

PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY
Nuisance consists in causing or allowing to cause without lawful justification, the escape of
any deleterious thing from one’s land or from anywhere into land in possession of the
plaintiff, such as water, smoke, gas, heat, noise and electricity. Here in our case, even after
humbly requests made by plaintiff and plaintiff’s father the volume only went higher.

viii
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. DEFENDANT IS LIABLE FOR NUISANCE

Nuisance is defined as “Anything that unlawfully worketh hurt, inconvenience, or damage.
That class of wrongs that arise from the unreasonable or unwarrantable use by a person of
his own property, either real or personal, or from his own improper or indecent personal
conduct, working an obstruction of or injury to the right of another or of the public, and
producing such material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or hurt that the law will
presume a consequent damage.”1
A person in possession of a property is entitled to its undisturbed enjoyment as per law.
However, if someone else’s improper use or enjoyment in his property ends up resulting into
an unlawful interference with his enjoyment or use of that property or of some of the rights
over it, or in connection with it, we can say that the tort of nuisance has occurred.
The word “nuisance” has been derived from the Old French word “nuire” which means “to
cause harm, or to hurt, or to annoy”. The Latin word for nuisance is “nocere” which means
“to cause harm”.
Nuisance is an injury to the right of a person’s possession of his property to undisturbed
enjoyment of it and results from an improper usage by another individual.
A nuisance interferes with the right of a specific person or entity, it is considered a private
nuisance. Unlike public nuisance, a private nuisance is an act affecting some particular
individual or individuals as distinguished from the public at large. The remedy in an action for
private nuisance is a civil action for damages or an injunction or both and not an indictment.

I.A. THE ELEMENTS OF A PRIVATE NUISANCE LAWSUIT

Property owners have a right to the enjoyment and use of their land. In the event where
another party interferes with that right, the person can sue the other one for nuisance.
For e.g. a neighbour regularly plays his music at the maximum volume possible late at night.
In such a case, the property owner can sue the interfering party. Talking to your neighbour
about the nuisance is usually the best 1st step, since they may not fully aware of the effects of
their actions. In our case, Aman’s father called Mr. Chaddha and explained to him that Aman
had an important interview next day and that he was getting disturbed due to loud noise

1
Wood Nuis, Black Law Dictionary, 2nd edition

1
coming from the flat opposite to Aman’s. He humbly requested Mr. Chaddha to keep the
volume slightly low. However, the volume only went higher. As Aman was already in the
process of preparing for the interview, his parents had earlier also complained to Mr.
Chaddha several times to keep the volume of the music at a lower level. However, they
would put the volume low for some duration, but would continue at a higher level of volume
in no time again. This means that Mr. Chaddha was fully aware of the facts of their actions.

The imprecise boundaries of what exactly constitutes private nuisance makes the task of
providing an exhaustive definition of the tort almost impossible. The presently accepted
definition of private nuisance that speaks only of substantial interference and
unreasonableness is simplistic and inadequate. While states may differ on their definition of a
private nuisance, a plaintiff must typically prove the following elements:
1. The plaintiff is the owner of the land or has the right to possess it.
2. The defendant literally acted in a way that interferes with the plaintiff’s enjoyment and
use of his or her property
3. The defendant’s interference was substantial and uncooperative.
In our case, the owner of the land was the plaintiff himself and the defendant substantially
interfered with the plaintiff’s right to enjoyment of the property.

1. SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE
Since, tort law aims to maintain a balance between the right of the occupier to do what he
likes and the right of the neighbour not to be interfered with, it is paramount to show leniency
towards the measure of interference that stems out of proximity between two individuals.
Therefore, the situations of interference enforceable by law must be higher than a certain
magnitude. As Lord Selbourne stated in Gaunt v. Fynney2, ‘Such things to offend against law
must be done in a manner, which beyond fair controversy, are to be regarded as excessive.’
But once again a question of whether an interference is sufficiently excessive is a question of
fact and is different for different cases. The courts have however devised yardsticks in order
to gauge the magnitude of harm caused to the neighbour. The first is the material damage
caused to the land. The second is that of the location of the claimant’s premises. This is given
importance by the courts because the expectations of the claimant in terms of comfort, quiet
and peace varies according to the location of his house or business; also interference which is

2
Gaunt v. fynney [1872] LR 8 Ch App 8

2
permissible in one area may not be permissible in another. A good illustration of the same
would be a successful claim of private nuisance resulting in an injunction on the practice of
prostitution in an adjacent land. There are also secondary requirements like ‘nuisance to
servitude’, where in some rare cases law provides remedy for the interference to luxury of
right to a view or right to light.

2. REASONABLENESS
Reasonableness in private nuisance refers to the reasonable interference of the defendant as
against the reasonable forseeability of the actions of the defendant in other torts. The tests
that are normally applied by the court to figure out the unreasonableness of the interference
of the defendant include the duration of the harm; apart from being a threshold
requirement in its own right, the persistence of interference has a direct bearing on its
unreasonableness. Unlike other assertions under unreasonableness, malice is not an absolute
necessity to prove private nuisance, however, if proved, it has persuasive effect on the court
to rule in favour of the plaintiff.

I.B. NOISE ALONE MAY CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE

Since the decision of Elliotson v. Feetham3, it has not been doubted, so far as the writer
knows, that noise alone may constitute an actionable nuisance, such as may form the basis of
a recovery of damages at law, or such as a court of equity will restrain by an injunction:
Soltau v. De Held4; Crump v. Lambert5; Fish v. Dodge6; Harrison v. St. Mark98 Church7;
Inchbald v. Robinson8" There is," said Lord Romilly, "I apprehend, no distinction between
any of the cases, whether it be smoke, smell, noise, vapor or water, or any other gas or fluid.
An owner of one tenement cannot cause or permit to pass over or flow into his neighbour's
tenement any one or more of these things, in such a way as materially to interfere with the
ordinary comfort of the occupier of the neighbouring tenement, or so as to injure his
property:" Crump v. Lambert9. So, it is said in a case in New Jersey, " There may be
circumstances where even the noise of a steam engine may become a private nuisance, and its
use, on that account, be restrained by the court. The authorities are abundant to sustain the
position that an individual cannot erect, in a densely settled portion of a city or town,
3
Elliotson v. Feetham [1835] 2 Bing NC 134
4
Soltau v. De Held [1851] 2 Sim NS 133
5
Crump v. Lambert [1867] 3 Eq. 409
6
Fish v. Dodge, 4 Denio 311 [1847]
7
Harrison v. St. Mark98 Church [2012] 12 Phila. 259
8
Inchbald v. Robinson [1867] L.R., 4 Ch. App. 388
9
Crump v. Lambert [1867] 3 Eq 409

3
occupied by private dwellings, any kind of manufacturing establishment, and so use the
machinery and carry on the business as to render living in the neighbourhood uncomfort-
able, either on account of the noise it occasions, or of its smoke and offensive smells:
Davidson v. Isham10.

I.C. A NUISANCE MAY BE IN RESPECT OF EITHER PROPERTY OR PHYSICAL DISCOMFORT: 

Physical discomfort is a kind of private nuisance which was caused to Aman. In the case of
physical discomfort, the act complained of must be in excess of the natural and ordinary
course of enjoyment of the property materially interfering with the ordinary comforts of
human existence.

Section 632 of the Municipality Act, Bengal Act III of 1899, Chairman or any person who
resides in Calcutta is empowered to complain to a magistrate of the existence of any nuisance
and this must be taken to be any nuisance under the act as defined in Section 3, clause 29.
Now under that section 1111 nuisance includes any act, omission, place, or thing which causes
or is likely to cause injury, danger, annoyance or offence to the sense of sight, smell or
hearing.

In the case of Biharilal vs. James Maclean12, the following principles were summarised; (1)
Constant noise, if abnormal or unusual, can be an actionable nuisance, if it interferes with
one's physical comforts. (2) The test of a nuisance causing personal discomfort is the actual
local standard of comfort, and not an ideal or absolute standard. (3) Generally, unusual or
abnormal noise on defendant's premises which disturbs sleep of the occupants of the
plaintiff's house during night, or which is so loud during day time that due to it one cannot
hear ordinary conversation in the plaintiff's house, or which cannot allow the occupants of the
plaintiff's house to carry on their work is deemed to be a noise which interferes with one's
physical comfort. (4) Even in a noisy locality, if there is substantial addition to the noise by
introduction of some machine, instrument, or performance at defendant's premises, which
materially affects the physical comforts of the occupants of the plaintiff's house, then also the
noise will amount to actionable nuisance. (5) If the noise amounts to an actionable nuisance,
the defence that the defendant is making a reasonable use of his own property will be
ineffectual. No use of one's property is reasonable if it causes substantial discomfort to other
10
Davidson v. Isham [1852] 9 N.J. Eq 186
11
Section 11, the Municipality Act of 1899
12
Biharilal vs. James Maclean [1924] ILR 26 ALL 297

4
persons. (6) If the defendant is found to be carrying on his business so as to cause a nuisance
to bis neighbours, he is not acting reasonably as regards them, and may be restrained by
injunction, although he may be conducting his business in a proper manner and according to
rules framed in this behalf either by the Municipality or by the Government. The later
defence can be effective in a case of public nuisance, but not in that of a private nuisance. (7)
If an operation of the defendant's premises cannot by any care and skill be prevented from
causing a private nuisance to the neighbours, it cannot be undertaken at all, except with the
consent of those injured by it.
In the case of Raj Singh vs. Gajraj Singh13, the circumstances under which an injunction can
be granted in case of nuisance, were stated. It was observed that before an injunction could be
issued, the plaintiff must prove that the nuisance to which he objects is an actionable one and
that it is apprehended to cause substantial injury to his property. The word 'substantial' when
used with reference to an injury caused or likely to be caused to a nuisance only means
"actual" or "real" as opposed to the trivial or not serious injuries. This is a position where the
action is based on injury to the property, however, if it is based on disturbance to physical
comfort, the other tests laid down in that connection must be satisfied. In Sadasiva v.
Rangappa14, the defendant, oil monger, had set up an oil mill of the country pattern in the
yard of his house, next door to the plaintiff's house. The noise of the mill caused by the,
turning of the machine drawn by the bullocks could be heard at a distance even of two
furlongs. It was found that the unbearable noise prevented the plaintiff from attending to his
work, and was an actionable nuisance.
The learned counsel decision of the Supreme Court in State of UP v. Raja Ram Jaiswal15,
where it was stated (para 14) that,
“if the person who was constructing a cinema hall was taking all necessary precautions to
avoid the sound becoming a nuisance to the neighbours, and particularly where the cinema
hall was to be air-conditioned, the neighbours cannot complain of a private nuisance.”

II. THERE WAS WRONGFUL DISTURBANCES OF EASEMENTS

The three topics in the project come within the ambit of Easement rights. An easement is a
right which the owner or occupier of a certain land possess, as such for the beneficial

13
Raj Singh vs. Gajraj Singh [1958] 7 AIR 1958 Allahabad 335
14
Sadasiva v. Rangappa [1919] AIR Mad 1185
15
State of UP v. Raja Ram Jaiswal [1985] AIR sc 1108

5
enjoyment of that land to do something, or to prevent and continue to prevent something
being done, in or upon or in respect of certain other land not his own.

II.A. CHARACTERISTICS ESSENTIAL TO AN EASEMENT

An easement is a privilege, without which the owner of one tenement has a right to enjoy in
respect of that tenement in or over the tenement of another person, by reason where of the
latter is obliged to suffer or refrain from doing something on his own tenement for the
advantage of the former.
The following six characteristics are essential for an easement-
(a) There must be a dominant and servient tenement
(b) An easement must accommodate the dominant tenement
(c) The rights of easement must be possessed for the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant
tenement.
(d) Dominant and servient owners must be different persons.
(e) The right should entitle the dominant owners to do and continue to do something or to
prevent and continue to prevent something being done, in or upon, or in respect of, the
servient tenement; and
(f) The something must be of a certain or well defined character and be capable of forming
the subject matter of a grant.
A wrongful disturbance of an easement is regarded by the courts as a legal nuisance, and
therefore you will need to bring an action in private nuisance to enforce your rights.
However, the disturbance cannot be a merely trivial or nominal one: there must be some
substantial interference with the enjoyment of your rights.

II.B. INTERFERENCE WITH THE ENJOYMENT OF THE LAND

It has been said that the tort takes three forms:
1. Encroachment on a neighbour’s land;
2. Direct physical injury to the land; or
3. Interference with the enjoyment of the land
The varieties of the third form are almost infinite but it is still a tort against rights of
property and therefore lies only at the suit of a person with a sufficient interest in the land.
Generally, the essence of a nuisance is a state of affairs that is either continuous or recurrent,
a condition or activity which unduly interferes with the use or enjoyment of land. It is not

6
necessary that there be any physical emanation from the defendant’s premises. Noises and
smells can be nuisances, but so, it seems, can be otherwise offensive businesses.
A private nuisance is caused when a person is doing something on their own land which they
are lawfully entitled to do, but becomes a nuisance when the consequences of the action
spread to the area of a neighbour. Nuisance is a balance between the competing rights of the
land owner to use the land as they choose, and the right of the neighbour not to have their
enjoyment of land interfered with.

But how about when an act is legal but conflicts with your moral viewpoint? The case of
Thompson-Schwab16 explores this concept. What was extraordinary about this case was that it
only concerned a mental disturbance – the fact that they knew the land was being used
immorally – that was not explicitly against the law. Usually, cases of private nuisance only
arose when a certain sound, smell or physical obstruction occurred. Such a claim as this one
is rare however, as the claimants must demonstrate that the interference was unreasonable.
This case was landmark for the definition of private nuisance itself, as it proved that a
nuisance could be a mental disturbance. However many factors (such as the morality of an
area) shall be considered.

The whole of private nuisance represents an attempt to preserve a balance between two
conflicting interests, that of one occupier in using his land between two as he thinks fit, and
that of his neighbour in the quite enjoyment of his land. Everyone must endure some degree
of noise, smell, etc. from his neighbour, otherwise modern life would be impossible and such
a privilege of interfering with the comfort of a neighbour is reciprocal. It is repeatedly said in
nuisance cases that the rule is sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas17, but the maxim is
unhelpful and misleading. If it means that no person is ever allowed to use his property so as
to injure another, it is palpably false. If it means that a person in using his property may injure
his neighbour, but not if he does so unlawfully, it is not worth stating, as it leaves unanswered
the critical question of when the interference becomes unlawful 18. In fact, the law repeatedly
recognises that a person may use his own land so as to injure another without committing a
nuisance. It is only if such use is unreasonable that it becomes unlawful.

16
Thompson-Schwab v. Costaki [1956] 1 W.L.R. 335
17
Use your own property in such away as not to harm that of others.
18
Bamfors v. Turnley (1862) 3 B. and S. 66 at 79, 83-84 per Barmwell B.

7
In the case of Bamford v. Turnley19, Plaintiff brought an action for nuisance, alleging that
brick kilns operated by his neighbour caused him injury in the form of fetid odour and an
unhealthy environment. The trial court entered judgment for Defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
Synopsis of Rule of Law - Even if activity performed on one’s land is necessary or for the
public benefit, one cannot infringe on the rights of another individual. If one does, they must
compensate the other for damages.
Issue - Is it a defense to say that Plaintiff was using land in a reasonable manner?
Held - The court reversed the lower court’s ruling, stating that a Defendant’s use of land,
even if private and for beneficial use, is not justification for the infringement on his
neighbour’s rights.
Discussion - Bamford is an early case raising some of the issues typically surrounding private
nuisance claims. Nuisance arises from an allegation of injury to person or property. The
injury need not be physical; it can include injury to rights, property enjoyment, or “quality of
life” issues. The law of nuisance recognizes two distinct categories of claims: private
nuisance and public nuisance. Bamford, as noted, is a case of the former, when a nuisance
interferes with another’s current possessory or beneficial interest in the use or quiet
enjoyment of land. As the court stated, “those acts necessary for the common and ordinary
use and occupation of land and houses may be done, if conveniently done, without subjecting
those who do them to an action.” The court reasons, however, that part of the expense of
private land use is the compensation to others who may be damaged in the process, and the
actor would then be liable for compensation.

II.C. NUISANCE TO SERVITUDES

We have been so far been considering private nuisance as the interference with a person’s use
or enjoyment of land, and we have seen that in determining liability, the nature and quality of
the defendant’s conduct is a factor of great importance. In addition to this situation, however,
the tort of nuisance provides a remedy for the infringement of a servitude (i.e., easements,
profits a pendre and natural rights), such as the obstruction of a right of way or the blocking
of an acquired right to light. In Colls v Home and colonial stores ltd,20 Lord Macnaghten
regarded the action for interference with an easement as sui generis (unique), the function of
the action being to remedy the infringement of a right, not to compensate for the commission
of a wrong, so that the nature of the defendant’s conduct would be less relevant consideration

19
IBID
20
Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores Ltd. [1904] A.C. 179.

8
than in other cases of nuisance. However, while this may be true of a simple case of
obstruction of a right of way, servitude rights may be as qualified as the general right to
enjoyment.

III. THERE WAS WRONGFUL ESCAPE OF DELETERIOUS

SUBSTANCE (NOISE) INTO PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY

According to Salmond, nuisance consists in causing or allowing to cause without lawful

justification, the escape of any deleterious thing from one’s land or from anywhere into land
in possession of the plaintiff, such as water, smoke, gas, heat, electricity. 

III.A. CHARACTER OF LOCALITY: RELEVANCE DEFENDANT’S OWN ACTIVITY

In Coventry v. Lawrence21 the supreme court was required to consider whether a nuisance
was committed as a result of the noise generated by the defendant’s motoring events:
speedway and stock car racing (held in stadium) and moto-cross (held on a track at the rear of
the stadium). One issue was the extent to which the defendants’ own activities could be taken
into account in determining the character of the locality. According to Lord Neuberger they
were to be taken into account, but not to the extent that they constituted a nuisance to the
claimant, i.e., the court could take into account that motoring events were held and that they
generated noise, but not noise at the level which constituted a nuisance. The circularity
involved in this proposition was not lost on Lord Neuberger but he considered it preferable to
either of the alternatives – namely, to ignore the defendants, activities altogether or to take
them into account without modification (as the court of appeal had done) 22 which would
mean that there could rarely be a successful claim nuisance. As for the circularity involved,
while this gave "cause for concern", the court would be required to go through an "iterative
process" when assessing the character of the locality and what noise within it constituted a
nuisance. Lord Carnwath noted that in earlier cases involving noises the courts did not find it
necessary to undertake an “interative process". Rather, they proceeded "on the basis that a
change in the intensity or character of an existing activity may result in a nuisance, no less
than the introduction of a new activity". Whether it did so was a matter for the judge to
determine "as an issue of fact or degree".23

21
Coventry v. Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13
22
[2012] EWCA Civ 2; [2012] 1 W.L.R. 2127
23
Coventry v. Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13

9
, which thA private nuisance is
caused when a person is doing
something on their own land,
which they are lawfully
entitled to do, but becomes a
nuisance when the
consequences of the action
spread to the area of a
neighbour. Nuisance is a
balance
between the competing rights
of the land owner to use the
land as they choose, and
the right of the neighbour not
to have their enjoyment of land
interfered with.
10
But how about when an act is
legal but conflicts with your
moral viewpoint? The case
of Thompson-Schwab explores
this concept.
A private nuisance is caused
when a person is doing
something on their own land,
which they are lawfully
entitled to do, but becomes a
nuisance when the
consequences of the action
spread to the area of a
neighbour. Nuisance is a
balance

11
between the competing rights
of the land owner to use the
land as they choose, and
the right of the neighbour not
to have their enjoyment of land
interfered with.
But how about when an act is
legal but conflicts with your
moral viewpoint? The case
of Thompson-Schwab explores
this concept.
A private nuisance is caused
when a person is doing
something on their own land,

12
which they are lawfully
entitled to do, but becomes a
nuisance when the
consequences of the action
spread to the area of a
neighbour. Nuisance is a
balance
between the competing rights
of the land owner to use the
land as they choose, and
the right of the neighbour not
to have their enjoyment of land
interfered with.
But how about when an act is
legal but conflicts with your
moral viewpoint? The case
13
of Thompson-Schwab explores
this concept.
A private nuisance is caused
when a person is doing
something on their own land,
which they are lawfully
entitled to do, but becomes a
nuisance when the
consequences of the action
spread to the area of a
neighbour. Nuisance is a
balance
between the competing rights
of the land owner to use the
land as they choose, and

14
the right of the neighbour not
to have their enjoyment of land
interfered with.
But how about when an act is
legal but conflicts with your
moral viewpoint? The case
of Thompson-Schwab explores
this concep
A private nuisance is caused
when a person is doing
something on their own land,
which they are lawfully
entitled to do, but becomes a
nuisance when the
consequences of the action
spread to the area of a
15
neighbour. Nuisance is a
balance
between the competing rights
of the land owner to use the
land as they choose, and
the right of the neighbour not
to have their enjoyment of land
interfered with.
But how about when an act is
legal but conflicts with your
moral viewpoint? The case
of Thompson-Schwab explores
this concept.
A private nuisance is caused
when a person is doing
something on their own land,
16
which they are lawfully
entitled to do, but becomes a
nuisance when the
consequences of the action
spread to the area of a
neighbour. Nuisance is a
balance
between the competing rights
of the land owner to use the
land as they choose, and
the right of the neighbour not
to have their enjoyment of land
interfered with.
But how about when an act is
legal but conflicts with your
moral viewpoint? The case
17
of Thompson-Schwab explores
this concept.
A private nuisance is caused
when a person is doing
something on their own land,
which they are lawfully
entitled to do, but becomes a
nuisance when the
consequences of the action
spread to the area of a
neighbour. Nuisance is a
balance
between the competing rights
of the land owner to use the
land as they choose, and

18
the right of the neighbour not
to have their enjoyment of land
interfered with.
But how about when an act is
legal but conflicts with your
moral viewpoint? The case
of Thompson-Schwab explores
this concept.
A private nuisance is caused
when a person is doing
something on their own land,
which they are lawfully
entitled to do, but becomes a
nuisance when the
consequences of the action
spread to the area of a
19
neighbour. Nuisance is a
balance
between the competing rights
of the land owner to use the
land as they choose, and
the right of the neighbour not
to have their enjoyment of land
interfered with.
But how about when an act is
legal but conflicts with your
moral viewpoint? The case
of Thompson-Schwab explores
this concept.
A private nuisance is caused
when a person is doing
something on their own land,
20
which they are lawfully
entitled to do, but becomes a
nuisance when the
consequences of the action
spread to the area of a
neighbour. Nuisance is a
balance
between the competing rights
of the land owner to use the
land as they choose, and
the right of the neighbour not
to have their enjoyment of land
interfered with.
But how about when an act is
legal but conflicts with your
moral viewpoint? The case
21
of Thompson-Schwab explo
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Learned District Court of Jodhpur may be
pleased to:

1. Hold the Defendant liable for their nuisance.

2. Award damages to the Plaintiff of INR 10 Lakhs.
3. Direct the defendant to pay costs of litigation.
And pass any other order in favour of the Plaintiff that it may deem fit in the ends of justice
and good conscience.

Date: 27th March 2023 Counsel No. 2175P

Place: Delhi Counsel for the Plaintiff

22