LAW OF TORTS

BATCH-2020-2025
COURSE- BA LLB
SUBJECT – LAW OF TORTS
FIRST- 1st YEAR

TOPIC-
LEGAL REMEDY FOR NUISANCE AS A TORT IN INDIA:
A STUDY

SUBMITTED BY – Bhuvneshwari Rathore

SAP ID—81012019491

SUBMITTED TO- Professor Vedashree A.

1
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i. ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………..1.

ii. RESEARCH DESIGN……………………………………………………………………2.

I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………3.

1.1 NUISANCE…………………………………………………………………………….....4.

1.2 KINDS OF NUISANCE…………………………………………………………………..5.

1.3 INJURY TO DAMAGE…………………………………………………………………...6.

1.4 PHYSICAL DISCOMFORT………………………………………………………………7.

1.5 WHO CAN SUE FOR NUISANCE……………………………………………………..8.

1.6 WHO IS LIABLE FOR NUISANCE……………………………………………………9.

1.7. LEGAL REMEDY……………………………………………………………………….10.

1.7.1 ABATEMENT…………..………………………………………………………………11.

1.7.2 DAMAGES……………………………………………………………………………..12

1.7.3 INJUNCTION…………………………………………………………………………..13.

1.8 BURDEN OF BROOF……………………………………………………………………14.

1.9 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………...15.

2.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………...16.

2
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

ABSTRACT

This study paper delves into the many facets of the nuisance tort. Since this is not a codified
statute, extensive study into this law and its various facets, as well as how it has been viewed by
the courts from time to time, is needed.

RESEARCH DESIGN

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

The research for this paper is carried out to fulfill the following objectives and end with a
conclusive study for the same:

• To gain knowledge about nuisance as a tort.

• To study about the types of nuisance
• To know about the legal remedies for nuisance as a tort.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The current analysis is primarily a doctrinal and methodological study. The writer used the
traditional approach of consulting collections with primary sources. Legal outlets such as law
books, as well as print and electronic media, gather materials and information.

CHAPTERISATION:

Chapter I: Introduction

3
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

Chapter II: Nuisance

Chapter III: Kinds of Nuisance

Chapter IV: Legal Remedy of Nuisance

Chapter V: Conclusion

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. NUISANCE:

One of the most general torts is that of negligence. It began in the nineteenth century. Negligence
in tort law may refer to either a state of mind or a separate tort. Nuisance is described as any act
that is committed to the harm or nuisance of another's property, tenements, or hereditaments but
does not constitute trespass. The French word for "nuisance" is nuire, which means "to damage
or insult." A nuisance (nocumentum) is something that causes harm, annoyance, or damage,
according to Blackstone.

While incompetence can be embarrassing, and there are occasions when the same act or
omission is used to explain a variety of behaviours, these two kinds of actions are usually
separate, and the facts used to justify them are different. Nuisance isn't a form of neglect, and
taking all appropriate precautions to avoid it isn't a defence.

There is no liability in nuisance where what was done was directly necessary or was simply
accidental, regardless of whether there is a saving provision that exempts undertakers from
4
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

liability in nuisance. In this case, a distinction must be made between statutory obligation or
responsibility and permissive regulatory authority. There is immunity against a nuisance suit in
the former case, although there is none in the latter, and authority must be exercised in strict
accordance with private rights; however, there would be no guarantees in either case where the
conduct taken is ultra vires the constitution, except in the former case.

Essential condition to sue for negligence:

1. The defendant was under a duty of care to the plaintiff.

2. The duty was towards plaintiff
3. There had been a breach of that duty
4. As a result the plaintiff has suffered damage.

DAMAGE:

As a consequence of defendant's conduct, plaintiff could have sustained serious injury. Plaintiff
may further demonstrate that the injury he has incurred as a result of defendant's conduct is
actual rather than indirect.

1.2 .KINDS OF NUISANCE –

Nuisance is of two kinds:

A. Public, general, or common

B. Private

A) PUBLIC, GENERAL, OR COMMON NUISANCE-

5
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

A public nuisance is described as any act or omission that causes common harm, hazard, or
annoyance to the public or to the general public who reside, or occupy property, in the vicinity,
or that may naturally cause damage, intrusion, risk, or annoyance to individuals who have reason
to use any public right.

A public nuisance is an act that has a significant effect on the general public, or a significant
portion of it, and can infringe on community citizens' rights. Acts that endanger the public's
wellbeing, protection, comfort, or ease, such as engaging in trades that produce unpleasant
odours or loud noises, stockpiling flammable products such as gunpowder in vast amounts, or
drawing water from a toxic stream in a can. The government or anyone acting on its behalf deals
with them.

A individual can be sued for a public nuisance only once; otherwise, a million cases could ruin
them. The number of houses and population density of the local area have a significant impact. If
either one or a few people are affected, the arrest would be overturned. A public nuisance cannot
be rendered legal over time, but it can be used to protect the conduct of a private citizen.1

Any citizen who is subjected to a public nuisance is not entitled to federal right of recourse. In
order for a private right of recourse to exist in the case of a public disturbance, the following
requirements must be met:

He must demonstrate that he has a unique impairment that is not shared with the majority of
people. If the suspected obstacle is, for example, the closure of a lane, he must show that he feels
the same frustration as all highway users. He must show that he has suffered losses that are
greater than those seen by the general population.

1. The harm must be actual, not indirect, such as where one direction is blocked while
another stays open. In this case, the private and particular harm is not sufficiently direct
to justify a cause of action.
2. The damage must be demonstrable to be of a substantial nature, not just transient or
ephemeral.

1
Home office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970)

6
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

As a consequence, in order for a person to maintain a claim for harm caused by a public
nuisance, the harm must be precise, immediate, and substantial. The aim of this rule is to cut
down on the number of lawsuits.

Even if no specific harm has been sustained, the Advocate General, or two or more persons who
have obtained the Advocate General's consent in writing, may file a claim in India for a decree
and injunction, or any other remedy as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case,
under section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 3 (48) of the General Clauses Act of 1897, the Indian Penal Code, describes "public
nuisance." “An act or unlawful omission that causes any common harm, threat, or nuisance to the
people in general who reside, or occupy the land, in the neighbourhood, or that may naturally
cause damage, intrusion, danger, or annoyance to individuals who may have occasion to use
some public right,” according to Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code. Simply put, a public
nuisance is an act that has a substantial effect on the general public or a significant portion of it
and can infringe on city citizens' rights.

Examples of public nuisance are-

As a consequence, acts that put the public's health, safety, comfort, or ease in jeopardy, or that
tend to degrade public morality, have often been considered a public nuisance. Malton Board of
Health v. Malton Manure Co., (1879) 4 Ex D 302; Lambton v. Mellish, (1894) 3 Ch 163; Malton
Board of Health v. Malton Manure Co., (1879) 4 Ex D 302; Malton Board of Health v. Malton
Manure Co., (1879) 4 Ex D 302 Attorney General v. Hornby, (1806) 7 East 195; Attorney
General v. Hornby, (1806) 7 East 195; Attorney General v. Hornby, (1806) 7 East 195; Attorney
General v. Hornby, Attorney General v. Hornby, Attorney General v. Hornby, Attorney General
v. Hornby, Attorney General v. Hornby, Attorney General v. Hornby, Attorney General v.
Hornby, Attorney General v. Hornby, Attorney2.

2
Attorney General v. Hornby, (1806) 7 East 195

7
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

It is possible to bring a single lawsuit against a public nuisance; otherwise, a million plaintiffs
could bankrupt a company. In addition, an uptick in the number of cases filed will overwhelm
the justice system. Furthermore, since public nuisance is not a tort, no legal action can be taken.

In the following situations, a citizen could have a private right of recourse in relation to a public
nuisance:

1. He would demonstrate that he was hurt in a manner that was different than what the rest
of the public saw, or that he was injured in a way that was different from what the rest of
the public experienced.
2. The disruption must be overt rather than indirect, such as where one path is closed while
another remains available.
3. Permanent damage must be established, not transient or ephemeral damage.

In Soltau v. De Held (1851) 2 Sim NS 133, the appellant lived in a house adjacent to a Roman
Catholic Chapel whose priest was the claimant, and the chapel bell was rung at all hours of the
for day and night Since the ringing was considered a public nuisance, the plaintiff was given an
injunction.

In Leanse v. Egerton, (1943) 1 KB 323, the plaintiff was injured by glass breaking from a
window in the defendant's unoccupied home on a Tuesday while walking on the highway, the
window having been broken in an air raid the previous Friday night. Due to the defendant's
agents' offices being closed on Saturday and Sunday, as well as labour shortages over the
weekend, no action to minimise the danger to passers-by were taken until Monday. The
property's state was totally unknown to the purchaser.3

The defendant was presumed to be aware of the nuisance's existence, that despite having enough
time to do so, he had failed to take sufficient steps to end it, and that as a result, he had
"continued" it and was liable to the plaintiff.

3
Leanse v. Egerton, (1943)
8
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

Attorney General v. P.Y.A. Quarries, 1 All ER 894 (1957): Inaction in Response to the Attorney
General's Request, 4The court determined that the nuisance of vibration causing personal distress
was widespread enough to be classified as a public nuisance, and that an injunction against the
quarry owners was properly granted, preventing them from conducting their operations. Civil
actions may be brought in India under Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Code without evidence
of exceptional damages. So there you have it:

Without Proving Special Damage-

“S.91. (1) In the event of a public disturbance or other illegal act affecting, or likely to involve,
the public interest, a claim for a declaration and injunction, or any other relief as may be
appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may be instituted.

1. By the Advocate General or with the consent of the court, by two or more parties, even though
no actual injury has been rendered to such persons as a result of such public nuisance or other
unlawful act.

Nothing in this section may be construed as limiting or affecting any freedom of recourse that
may occur in addition to the provisions of this section.”

As a result, a claim for a public nuisance can be brought by either of the following:

• Ex officio, by the Advocate-General; or

• At the request of two or more people, by him, or
• With the permission of the Court, by two or more people.

B) PRIVATE NUISANCE-

4
Attorney General v. P.Y.A. Quarries, (1957)
9
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

A private nuisance is described as using or encouraging the use of one's estate, or something
under one's control, to harm a property owner or occupier by physically harming his property or
interfering materially with his wellbeing, protection, or convenience.5

The essentials of nuisance thus are

I. An unlawful act
II. Damage actual or presumed

Damage, whether real or imagined, is a necessary component of a nuisance operation.

Furthermore, the harm must be substantial, not simply emotional, theoretical, transient, or
ephemeral.

Private nuisance are of three kinds:

1. Encroachment on a neighbor's property is a nuisance.

2. Detriment to a neighbor's property caused by a private physical injury; and
3. Infringement on a neighbor's right to peaceful enjoyment of his property, such as by
allowing smoke to escape.

In all three ways, the essence of private nuisance is the same: interference with property or
enjoyment of land. If there is no diminution of market value, the measure of damages is the
diminution in the valuation of the property. If there is no diminution of market value, the
measure of damages is the lack of amenity value. If the occupier of land causes physical injuries
as a result of inhaling the smoke, he will have a fault cause of action, but he may not have a
nuisance cause of action. As a result, the amount of restitution in a private nuisance case is not
determined by the number of people who use the property in question. As a result, the only
people who would sue for a reduction of amenity value, as opposed to a decrease in the value of
5
Sturges v Bridgman, (1879)

10
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

the property, are the owner or the occupier of exclusive ownership. As a result, parties who are
merely living with the owner but have no title to the property, such as the owner's wife and
children, have no cause of action in nuisance.

Private nuisances include acts leading to-

a) Intentional interference with easements or servitudes, such as obstruction of light and air,
or interference with the right to support; or

b) Intentional release of harmful substances onto another's land, such as smoke, odour,
fumes, gas, noise, water, filth, fire, energy, and so on. This (nuisance) comes in a variety
of ways. However, any injury, regardless of the type, does not mean that it is a nuisance.
The whole legislation on the matter is essentially a balancing of opposing interests. In
reality, the law acknowledges that a person can harm others on his own property without
causing a nuisance. It is only because such usage is unreasonable that it is considered
illegal. Reasonability is critical in deciding whether or not a disturbance has occurred.6

The responsibility for nuisance has been held under check by the principle of fair usage. Normal
movements of residents in a nearby flat do not constitute a disturbance, even though their noise
is detected due to poor sound insulation. Neither the tenants nor the landlord should be found
responsible for nuisance in this situation. A privilege to perform a private nuisance may be
obtained by prescription as an easement, and may be the basis of a legal suit. The freedom to
create noise to harass a neighbour cannot be supported by the customer until the noise has
amounted to an actionable disturbance during the user's time.7

It is not a defence in a nuisance action that the appellant caused the nuisance; or that the
nuisance-causing conduct is useful to the public; or that the location where the nuisance is

6
Dhanusao v Sitabai ILR (1948)
7
Bhanwarlal v Dhanraj, AIR 1973

11
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

produced is the only appropriate location for the purpose; or that the defendant is simply making
a fair use of his land.

a) A person is not liable for a nuisance constituted by the state of his property unless
b) He causes it;
c) By the neglect of some duty he allows it to arise; or

He fails to resolve it within a reasonable period after he is or should have become aware of it as
it arises as a result of his own act or default. A man may cause a disturbance by erecting and
operating a loud Smith's forge or factory, a striking tallow furnace, a privy, or a cesspool, the
filth of which percolates through the soil and contaminates his neighbor's well or spring, or by
parking a variety of vans in front of a shop entrance.

• INJURY TO DAMAGE-

Any reasonable injury would be enough to warrant action in the event of property loss. The
plaintiff's trees and shrubs were killed by gases released by the defendant's industrial activity in
St. Helen Smelting Co. v. Tipping, (1865) 77 HCL 642. The Court decided that the damages
were a cause of litigation because they resulted in property destruction.

The claimant, a scientist, argued that a significant amount of dust generated by the defendant's
brick powdering mill reaches the consultation room and creates inconvenience and irritation to
the complainant and his patients in Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal, AIR 1982 All. 285 The Court
determined that when a sufficient amount of dust from a brick powdering mill set up outside a
doctor's consultation room reached the room and left a clear thin red coating on clothing, as well
as the dust being a public threat that would harm people's health, the doctor has established
personal injury. He argues that his actions resulted in one-of-a-kind losses:8

8
Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal, AIR 1982 All. 285:

12
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

A ran a silver fox breeding business on his estate, according to Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v
Emmett (1936) 2 KB 468. A owns a silver fox breeding business on his property. Vixens are
very stressed during the breeding season, and if they are agitated, they can not mate, miscarry, or
kill their offspring. B, an adjacent landowner, instructed his son to fire guns on his property as
close as possible to A's breeding pens in order to make A's vixens fearful. A obtained a
restraining order against B and was successful. In Dilaware Ltd. v. Westminister City Council,
(2001) 4 All ER 737, the owner of a tree rising in a highway's footpath was the respondent (HL).
The tree's roots created holes in the house next door.

The transferee of the house was found to be entitled to reimbursement for any damages incurred
by the trees' continuing nuisance after the cracks were identified.

2. PHYSICAL DISCOMFORT-

There are two conditions that must be fulfilled in the case of physical pain:

A. During the usual and normal course of using the property –

An individual must have a proprietary or possessory interest in the property affected by the
nuisance before they can bring a nuisance to land action.

B. Interfering materially with the usual comforts of human life-

The pain should not be anything that a normal or average citizen in the area would tolerate.

C. Interfering materially with the usual comforts of human life-

13
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

A normal or average citizen in the area should not put up with or tolerate the pain.

When determining whether or not the discomfort is important, consider the following:

• The extent to which it is present;

• The time frame;
• Where it is found;

Owner's mode for the house. Imperial Gas Co. v. Broadbent (1856)9 In 7 De GM & G 436, an
injunction was issued to bar a gas firm from producing gas so close to the plaintiff's property and
in such a manner as to damage his garden produce due to noxious matter escape.

In the case of Shots Iron Co. v. Inglis, (1882) 7 App Cas 518, an injunction was given.10, and
make it unlawful for a company to perform calcining operations in some way that might cause
noxious vapours to be released on the pursuer's property, harming his plantations or properties.
Sanders Clark v. Grosvenor Mansions Co., 16 TLR 428, 1900:11 An injunction was issued to
stop anyone from converting a floor under a residential flat into a restaurant, which would create
heat and odour problems for the flat's occupants.

The Allahabad High Court held in Radhey Shiam v. Gur Prasad Sharma, AIR 1978 All 86, that if
a flour mill creates a significant rise in noise, materially affecting the plaintiff's physical comfort
in a noisy environment, a permanent injunction against the defendant can be levied.

In Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852, a confectioner had been using a pestle and mortar in
his back premises, which abutted on a physician's garden, for upwards of twenty years, and the
noise and vibration were not felt to be a nuisance or complained of until 1873, when the
physician erected a consultation room at the end of his garden, and the noise and vibration, due

9
Broadbent v. Imperial Gas Co. (1856)
10
Iron Co. v. Inglis, (1882) 7 App Cas 518
11
Sanders Clark v. Grosvenor Mansions Co. (1900) 16 TLR 428
14
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

to the physician's erection, were felt. It was decided that he had not, since the customer was not
physically capable of being stopped by the owner of the servient tenement, and was not
actionable until the date when it became an annoyance in statute due to the increased proximity,
and since the latter had no power of deterrence, there was no approval or acquiescence by the
latter.

• WHO CAN SUE FOR NUISANCE?

An claim for nuisance of a transient kind may only be brought by the real occupier of the
premises. 12 The owner or reversioner has no right of possession if the injured property is used
by renters. Only where the damage is irreversible (e.g., obstruction of light)13

A person who takes an unfurnished house as a tenant cannot keep the landlord responsible for
losses incurred before and as a result of his occupation as tenant. A tenant's wife was found
ineligible to sue for damages incurred by a tank crashing into her Lords' home. An individual
with exclusive legal rights to the property in dispute may sue. A person in exclusive possession
who is unable to assert his title may also sue.

• WHO IS LIABALE FOR NUSIANCE-

A tenant's wife was ruled ineligible to sue for damages caused by a tank smashing into her Lords'
house. A nuisance suit cannot be brought by someone who has no stake in the land. A person
with a right to exclusive ownership of the property in dispute could sue.14

• LEGAL REMEDIES-

12
Ball v Ray (1873)
13
Alwar Chetty v Madras Electric Supply Corporation Ltd,(1932)
14
Mumford v Ow

15
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

Nuisance in any manner, as defined by tort law, that affects everyone's personal and or property
rights gives such a person a cause of action to seek redress from the court..15 The remedies for
private nuisances are-

1. Abatement
2. Damages
3. Injunction

1) ABATEMENT-

Abatement is the termination of a disturbance by the person that has been harmed without
resorting to court action. It is necessary to remove the object. -

I. Peaceable
II. Without danger to life or limb, and

Whether the nuisance is a dwelling-house in actual usage on a plantation, whether waiting is

dangerous, whether it is fair to breach another's property to abate the nuisance, or whether it is
necessary to evict the same after warning, There should be no more harm done than was actually
required. Breaking or damaging a right of way is legal, but removing an obstructive gate or fence
is not. Many of those who oppose buttresses could not justify demolishing both the weir and the
buttresses if a stone weir had been used to build them.

The law does not favor the abatement of a nuisance by a private citizen. The courts have
narrowed self-redress to specific cases involving an overhanging limb or encroaching root that
do not justify the expense of civil litigation, as well as urgent cases requiring immediate action.16
Where the nuisance is solely induced by the wrongdoer's absence, the law is vague.

15
Balwant Singh v Commissioner of Police,(2015)
16
Burton v Winters,(1993)

16
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

The owner of a parcel of land has no right to cause his trees to overhang onto his neighbor's
house, and he cannot obtain such a right by prescription, so the aggrieved party must abate the
nuisance. Local jurisdictions, such as counties, have broad legal authority to eliminate public
nuisances, and if they refuse to exercise these rights for whatever purpose, a petition under
Article 226 may be filed to compel them to do so.

• NOTICE-

a) The affected party may abate nuisances caused by an act of commission without giving
notice to the person who caused them, unless the statute requires it.

b) Where branches of trees overhanging one's land must be removed, and b) Where the
safety of people and property necessitates immediate action. 17

Trees overhanging another person’s boundary-

An easement to project the branches of trees growing on a man's property into another man's
land cannot be obtained. A person cannot cut off the overhanging branches of a tree that grows
partly on his property and partly on a neighbor's property. An individual who appropriates the
fruit that drops from a tree is guilty of conversion.

2) DAMAGES-

The test in nuisance litigation is not whether the defendant is using his own land legally or not,
but whether he does harm to his neighbour. The loss of value of the property as a result of the
nuisance is the calculation of harm. The complainant must show that he or she has suffered some
kind of special damage. 18 Since the location of a nuisance is one of the main reasons, but not the

17
The Earl of Lonsdale v Nelson
18
SA Basil v Corporation of Calcutta, ILR (1940)

17
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

only reason, for a house being unlettable, the penalties will be the amount of monthly rental
value loss due to the nuisance.

In the case of a continuing nuisance, the court cannot seek liability on any injury that has
occurred since the claim was filed, and any day that the nuisance exists is a new course of action
on which further damages can be recovered. Exemplary damages may be awarded to force
abatement after ample damages have already been awarded and a new claim is brought to
prevent the disturbance from continuing. Damage that a person would suffer as a result of a
nuisance in addition to what he would suffer in common with other persons affected by the
nuisance is referred to as "special injury."

3) INJUNCTION-

To obtain an order, it must be shown that the real or potential injury is so severe that it cannot be
adequately compensated. The court will not refuse an injunction if the bodily damage.19

In the event of a persistent disruption, the normal remedy is an injunction, which cannot be easily
revoked, or restitution in its place. The laws that relate to this topic were laid down in Shelfer v
City of London Lighting Co, which is still considered a strong law on the matter. Since the case
of Shelfer involves noise and vibrations, the laws defined there apply to any case of continuing
disruption. Its values can be applied to any situation involving a chronic annoyance. Regan v
Paul Properties provided the inspiration for Shelfer's principles.20 this was a case of ongoing
annoyance due to light obstruction. These are the guidelines:

1. An applicant has a prima facie right to an injunction against someone who is committing
a wrongful act, such as a continuing nuisance, that is infringing on their civil rights.

19
Att-Gen v Sheffield Gas Consumers Co., (1853
20
Shelfer in Regan v Paul Properties

18
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

2. The wrongdoer does not have the moral right to petition the judge to sanction him by
buying the claimant's rights in exchange for court fines.

3. In most cases, the judge has the authority to order restitution rather than an injunction;
however, this does not imply that the court is a "tribunal for legalising unjust deeds" from
a defendant who is able and ready to pay restitution.

4. While it is impossible to specify all of the circumstances relevant to the exercise of the
discretion or to lay down rules for it, the judgments indicated that the following factors
should be considered: if the claimant's legal rights were injured in a minor way; whether
the injury could be quantified in money; whether the claimant had demonstrated that he
only wanted money; and whether the claimant had demonstrated that he only wanted
money.

5. No mandatory warrant against a private citizen for a statutory nuisance may be imposed. Unless
the nuisance was induced and continues in defiance of 21 In most situations, an injunction to
prevent an actual or imminent disruption will not be given until the threat22 Another example
of a possible nuisance is when the defendant's likely behaviour is dangerous or harmful.
This includes digging a trench alongside a highway or a children.

1.8. BURDEN OF PROOF-

When a public nuisance is established and the suspect is identified as the one that caused it, the
defendant is given the moral standard of evidence to justify or excuse himself.23 If he fails to do
that, he will be held liable, while in a negligence case, the plaintiff will normally be held legally
responsible for. After a complainant establishes that a nuisance has arisen from the defendant's
property, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show that he has a defense to the claim,

21
Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co,(1895)
22
Regan v Paul Properties,(2007)
23
Kuldip Singh v Subhash Chander Jain, AIR 2000

19
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW
LAW OF TORTS

and the defence is the absence of incompetence in the case of legislative authority or that he
takes any appropriate action to avoid the nuisance in the case of private nuisance.24

1.9. CONCLUSION-

There is no such thing as a nuisance statute. Regardless, perception and a series of choices have
caused it to evolve and develop. The expression "nuisance" appears often in a man's everyday
life, and it must be determined on a case-by-case basis to ensure that neither the aggrieved victim
nor the perpetrator is subjected to undue punishment. Indian courts have widely borrowed from
English concepts and common law rulings in order to include precedent in nuisance litigation. As
a result, a solid legal framework has been developed to ensure the justice and well-being of all
those involved, as well as society at large.

2.0. BIBLIOGRAPHY-

• https://blog.ipleaders.in/the-tort-of-
nuisance/#:~:text=The%20Indian%20Penal%20code%20defines,to%20use%20any%20p
ublic%20right.
• http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/825/Nuisance:-A-Tort.html
• https://www.studocu.com/en-gb/document/ulster-university/law-of-tort/lecture-
notes/nuisance-essay-2015/1709274/view
• https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/209052?ln=en

24
Advocate General v Haji Ismail Hashmam,(1909)

20
KIRIT P. MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW