Nuisance

Instances
• Pollution
• Noxious fumes
• Offensive smells
• Noise
• Insects and disease spreading germs
Environmental concerns
Peaceful enjoyment of private property
Obstruction in use of public places
 Nuisance
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.
Essentials of Nuisance :
1. Unreasonable interference
2. Interference is with the use or enjoyment of
land
3. Damage
 Public and Private Nuisance
Public Nuisance is a crime but private nuisance is a tort
Private nuisance is rooted in the protection of
landholding rights
Private nuisance is an unlawful interference with a
person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over
or in connection with it.
A balance has to be maintained between the right of
the occupier to do what he likes with his own, and the
right of his neighbour not to be interfered with .
 Dr.Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal
Defendant's brick grinding machine generated
dust , that entered the consulting room of the
doctor and caused inconvenience to both doctor
and patients.
Held : Special damage was caused hence
permanent injunction was issued .
 Campbell v. Paddington Corporation
Plaintiff had contract with some persons to occupy
balcony of first and second floor of her house from
where the funeral of King Edward could be seen.
The defendant corporation constructed stand on the
road in front of plaintiff’s house to facilitate its
members and guests to sit and watch the funeral and
that obstructed view from her balcony.
Held : Its public nuisance and plaintiff had special
damage hence corporation was liable to pay her
compensation.
 Radhey Sham v. Gur Prasad
Defendant were to install and run flour mill on
their premises. Plaintiff filled case seeking
permanent injunction because the sound from
mill may affect the health.
Held : Noise added to the locality amounts to
nuisance hence injunction was issued.
 Shanmughavel v. Sri Ramkumar Ginning Firm

The plaintiff constructed a building to start ginning factory

and obtained the license for the same. Thereafter
defendant was granted license to start brick kiln on the
adjacent land.
Plaintiff filed suit for injunction restraining defendant from
starting brick kiln contending that such activity may affect
the quality of cotton due to the fume that emanate from
brick kiln and spark from it may cause damage to his
industry.
Held : Plaintiff entitled to injunction and court recognised
right to prevent occurrence of nuisance
Winterbottom v. Lord Derby
Defendant had blocked a public footway and that obstructed the
movement of public and plaintiff. There is no special damage to plaintiff.
Hence he can't recover damages.
Usaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir
Jai Santoshi Maa movie showing three goddesses jealous of each other
Health v. Mayor of Brighton
Plaintiff sought injunction against the defendant power station from
where a Buzzing Noise was generating and same was alleged to be
disturbing the persons attending the church. The noise did not cause
annoyance to any other person but only to plaintiff.
Stone v Bolton
Cricket ball hit plaintiff outside the stadium
An act otherwise lawful does not become a nuisance
even if defendant acted with an evil motive.
Mayor of Bradford Corpn. v. Pickles - obstructing the
water flow to plaintiffs land by drilling shafts on his land

If the lawful act is done with malice and if it is

unreasonable and excessive it may be considered as
nuisance
Christle v. Davey – Music teacher was disturbed by
neighbour by hammering the wall, whistling. Court
granted injunction. Noise made in defendant's house
were not if legitimate kind.
Nayan Behari Das v. State of Orissa
• Prayer for issuance of an appropriate
writ.
• Commanding opposite parties to
adopt strict measures for restraining
use of multitobed horns which would
cause unduly harsh, shrill, alarming
noise by vehicles.
• Though rules framed under Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 already do not
permit such type of horbs to be used.
• It was directed that at regular
intervals announcements be made in
radio, tv, press that use of multihorns
was prohibited.
• It was advised to exhibit the notice at
the bus-stop and RTO offices.
 Trespass v. Nuisance
• If the interference is • If interference is
direct the wrong is consequential it
Trespass. amounts to nuisance.
• Planting tree on • When a person
another's land. planets tree in his
land and the roots
and branches project
into anothers
premises
• Trespass is • In nuisance there is
interference with a interference with a
person's possession person's use it
of land. enjoyment of land.
• Trespass • Nuisance can be
interference is committed through
always through the medium of
some material or intangible objects.
tangible objects
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd. v. Emmett
Plaintiff company involved in breeding silver
foxes on its land and these foxes use to be
nervous during breeding season and any loud
sound would cause their miscarriage. The
defendant maliciously fired gun shots on his
land.
• Held- plantiff entitled to an injunction and
damages.
Contd…
A mere trifling or fanciful inconvenience is not
enough.
De minimis non curat lex = law does not take
account of very trifling matters.
Inconvenience and discomfort from the point of
view of a particular plaintiff is not the test of
nuisance but the test is how an average man
residing in the same area would take it.
 Sensitive plaintiff
• A person cannot increase the liability of his
neighbour by carrying an exceptionally
delicate trade.
• Injury to property is actionable as nuisance.
• St. Helen Smelting Co. V. Tipping
• Find from defendant company's work
damaged plaintiff's Yes and shrubs. Damage
to property defendant's were liable.
 S. 15 of Indian Easements Act, 1882

• The prescriptive right of easement of

access and use of light and air can be
acquired if the light has been
• 1. Peaceably enjoyed, as an easement
• 2. As of right, without interruption
• 3. For 20 yrs
• Substantial infringement of an easement
of light and air
Barber v. Penley
Due to the considerable queues at the Defendant’s
theater it was difficult to have access to plaintiff’s
boarding house. Therefore plaintiff filed case for
nuisance. Held the obstruction was nuisance and
defendant liable.
Dwyer v. Mansfield
When there was acute shortage of potatoes there use to
be long queues in front of Defendant’s shop and that
disturbed the access to plaintiff’s shop hence a suit for
nuisance was filed. Defendant not liable because he was
conducting his buisness in normal way, it was not
unreasonable.
Ware v. Garston Haulage Co ltd.
Defendant left his lorry with attached trailer by the side of a
highway and in the night plaintiff rammed into it as there was no
rear light to lorry.
Leanse v. Egerton
The window panes of building belonging to the defendant which
was by the side of Highway had been broken in an air rade.
The plaintiff was injured by glass falling from the window the
next Tuesday by which time no repairs had been done by the
defendant.
although owner had no actual knowledge of the state of his
premises he was presumed to have a knowledge of the danger
which constituted nuisance was and thus defendant is liable
.
 Defences
1. Prescriptive right to commit nuisance
Sturges v. Bridgman
Defendant had kitchen in backyard of his house to
prepare confectionaries for more than 20 years .
His neighbour a physician built a consulting room
in backyard of his house and then complained
against defendant for nuisance for sound and
vibrations that was present in defendant’s kitchen
2. Statutory authority
 Ineffectual Defences
• Nuisance due to acts of others
• Public good
• Reasonable care
• Plaintiff coming to nuisance