BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Under the Article 133 & 136 of Indian Constitution)

IN THE MATTERS OF:

RAJ SINGH CHAUHAN - APPELLANT

V.

MR. DUTTA - RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

(ADITYA YADAV LLB 3 YEARS 1st SEM)

1
 TABLES OF CONTENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………..…………………

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………...…………………………………………

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………………..

ISSUES RAISED……………………………………………………………………………….

ARGUMENT ADVANCED………………………….………………………………………..

PRAYER………………….…………………………………………………………………….

2
 Index of Authorities
STATUTES

 Constitution of India, 1950

 Code of civil procedure,1908

Books Referred

 R.K Bangia, Law of Tort

 J.N Pandey, Constitutional Law

Cases Referred

 Rickard v. Lothian, 1913 A.C. 263

 Cambridge water Co. Ltd v. Eastern councils Leather PLC, 1994 A.C 264 house of lords
 Ryland’s v. Fletcher
 Sir Chunni lal Mehta and son’s ltd v. the century spinning and manufacturing co. ltd
(1962) AIR . 1314

3
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted before the honorable supreme court of India that the defendant
disagree with the jurisdiction to entertain this case under article 136 of the Indian
constitution

Article 136 Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special
leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or
matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India

(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or
made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces

Article 133 Appellate Jurisdiction of 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

4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. In Kishangarh, known for mining industry Mr Rajsingh chauhan a politician owns a farm house
and uses it non naturally for mining(blasting, crushing).
2. One day Mr dutta’s few goats entered into the premises of Rajsingh’s farm house and
destroyed the crop of their farm the servants of the farm captured the goats and demanded
compensation for the loses but Mr dutta denied to give compensation and in turn warned them
along with villagers to report in media about their illegal mining activities after warning
Rajsinghs manager released the goats of Mr. Dutta.
3. Mr. Dutta who is a adjacent neighbor of Mr. Rajsingh there is wooden fence in between their
boundaries of farm houses.
4. Mr. Dutta has a hobby to plant flowers on his land and he had a heart shaped flower bed and
adjacent to the wooden fence on the other side Rajsingh is fond of growing vegetables.
5. Around Mr.Dutta’s flower bed lot of weed plant started to grow so to eradicate them Mr. Dutta
bought a weed killer known as slaughter and spread it all over the weed plants.
6. On that day rain washed some weed killer and it seeped under the wooden fence onto
Rajsingh’s vegetable patch. Eventually on the vegetable was consumed by Rajsingh’s family but
only daughter Rishita fell ill and admitted into the hospital. The medical evidence traced the
cause of the illness to the weed killer.

5
 Issues Raised

1. The appeal filed under article 136 of the Indian constitution the appeal made is not
maintainable under the jurisdiction of the supreme court.
2. The rule of Ryland v. Fletcher does not apply.

6
 Advance Arguments

1. Jurisdiction is not maintainable under article 133 and 136:-

Under article 136, supreme court has the jurisdiction if the judgement is tainted with
serious legal infirmities,or is founded on legal construction which is wrong. The leave
should be refused because the same petition is filed over and over again on the same
cause of action . Section 100 of cpc if the high court is satisfied that a substantial
question of law is an involved, it shall formulate that question, the appeal shall be heard
on that question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of appeal be
allow to argue that the case does not involves such question.
In the present case, the high court has already dismissed the appeal and does not hold
any such opinion.
In case of Chunni Lal v. Mehta & sons ltd v. century spg. and mfg. co. ltd it was
clarified that a question of law would be substantial if directly or indirectly affect
the rights of the parties and/ or there is something doubt or difference of an
opinion on an issue.
No substantial question of law is there because in this case Mr. Rajsingh, in the name of
rule of strict liability wants to take revenge from Mr. Dutta as Mr. Dutta along with
villagers clearly warned him to report in media about his illegal mining activities.
The fact that patch of lettuce was consumed by his whole family but only the daughter
Rishita suffered the health issue clarifies his malicious intention of taking a revenge and
obtaining money as compensation from wealthy chartered accountant Mr Dutta .

2. The rule of Ryland v. Fletcher does not apply

The rule propounded In Ryland v. Fletcher known as strict liability have three essentials
elements-
a) Non-Natural use of land
use of weed killer to eradicate the weed plant on one’s own land does not mound to
non-natural use of land. As in ordinary court of action people generally use weed killers
to eliminate the weeds plants. In case of Rickard v. Lothian it was clarified that the rule
of Ryland v. Fletcher requires the special use of land and use of weed killer to remove
the weed is not special use of land.
And in the present case lower court already held that the use of weed killer is natural
use of land.
b) Accumulation of dangerous thing

7
 Mr Dutta did not collected or accumulated such dangerous thing(large body of water,
gas, electricity, vibration, yew trees, sewage, flag pole, noxious fume, explosives) on his
land, he in usually course of action sprayed the weed killer as it was necessary to
eradicate the weed.
In case of Ryland v. Fletcher the defendant had collected water on large scale which
was likely to do mischief.
c) Escape of that thing
In the present case it cannot be presumed by Mr Dutta that weed killer would
escaped in such a manner that it would seeped under the ground and would flow to the
vegetable patch of Mr Rajsingh. It was too remote as a damage.
In the case of Cambridge Water Co. Ltd v. Eastern Counties Leather plc it was held
that the defendant is no liable as the damage was too remote. It was not reasonably
foreseeable that the spillages would result in the closing of the bore hole. The foresee
ability of the type of damage is pre requisite of liability in actions of claims based on the
rule of Ryland v. Fletcher.

8
 PRAYER

It is most humbly prayed before the hon’ble Supreme court in the light of the issues arguments
advanced and authorities cited ,the court may adjudge and declare that

 Appeal is not maintainable.

 The rule of strict liability does not apply here so the justice must be served to
respondent and the judgment of the lower court should b upheld.