Ram Baj Singh v. Babulal
In this case the court has recognized private nuisance arising out from a public case.
Facts of case are the plaintiff was a doctor, was running a cleaning in his area, he complained about the defendant as defendant has brick-powdering mill also in same area where clinic was situated so, here plaintiff demanded special damage and also compensation for substantial injury as the defendant mill has polluted the atmosphere and also had entered to the consulting chamber of plaintiff which caused physical inconvince to him and his patients. Also, plaintiff mentioned in complaint that this machine set-up by defendant is there without permission from municipal board.
Defendant contended that there is no question of pollution in atmosphere and also bricks used to be put in moisture before grinding to avoid dust. Defendant further stated that machine do not cause noise pollution.
Courts comment on special damage it was held that dust that was coming out in air was health hazard and also it was entering plaintiff chamber so much that red coating was visible from the clothes of person sitting there. This is absolutely coming in category of special damage.
Substantial injury every injury is considered to be substantial in which a reasonable person is considered to be so. It is been reviewed that reasonable person of society has caused this to another reasonable person. If any one has to wait for actual damage then it will become palpable or demonstrable so this case facts provide right to have compensation from substantial injury.
Christi v. Davey
The defendant filled case as said he was being continuously irritated by the music and singing lessons by the plaintiff. Plaintiff here was music teacher and was giving music lesson to students four day in a week which totally amounts to 17 hours approximately. The neighbors were being aggravated because plaintiff so they also did party where they were beating trays, whistling, shrieking and this way he was interfering his music teaching.
Held that giving music tuition cannot be considered as unreasonable use of house, that could be restrained by any injunction. But the person who interfered into this teaching by doing party and creating wired sound have done so out of malice, which is a significant factor and has caused nuisance.
Shaikh Ismail Habib v. Nirchanda
The defendant had set apart a portion of his own house for purpose of charity in this he allowed to preform any type of function related to marriage ceremonies, poojas etc. this was available to people present around free of cost, due to this particular charity place a lot of noise was caused also with discordant instrument plying for long time during ceremonies this was normal residence place where people finding difficult of do normal and ordinary course of life.
Held by high court that this act of defendant amounted to nuisance and plaintiff was entitle to injunction that will restrain defendant from disturbing further during hour of sleep and charity cannot be defense in such cases.
Datta Mal Chiranji Lal v. L.L Prasad
Defendant has a electric flour mill in premises of Bazar Locality of Mussoorie which was adjacent to plaintiff house. The plaintiff alleged that this caused lot of noise and vibration and because of this plaintiff and his family members are finding difficult to reside in their house, they said the this is causing inconvince and discomfort to them.
Case moved in Allahabad High Court dealt with two contention together and stated: every owner of property has right to use that as per reasonability this is subjected to certain limitations as maybe incidental and beneficial enjoyment of owner and properties.
Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reside comfortably in his own house, if the defendant is producing noise and vibration as to cause substantial discomfort to plaintiff this amount to nuisance. The court stated mill as nuisance and substantial question and dismissed the appeal.
D.Ramnatha v. S. Razaack
The case was that plaintiff was enjoying light and air from window and ventilator form upstairs of building for about 50 years. Therefore, he acquired easement right. The defendant construction which he wants to do of two story will completely shut up these windows and there will be no light or air to pass to property of plaintiff. It was held that defendant is not allowed to obstruct the air and light coming through the windows. Hence court instated the suit of permanent injunction permanently, prohibiting the defendant from shutting out the windows ans ventilators situated in the plaintiffs property and costs.
The case in this has above mentioned article has recommended, that is based on the society where the nuisance has been decided. Cases concerned to tort has not come in sudden it has been evolved with passage of time and in these cases of tort precedent plays a very important role while deciding cases pending.
Author Details: Prachi Agnihotri (UPES)