NUISANCE

MADE BY:
TANISHQ,VRINDA,SIMRAN.
 DEFINITION
• The word ‘nuisance has been derived from the French word ‘nuire’ and
Latin word ‘nocare’ which means, to do hurt or to annoy.
• Ordinarily nuisance means disturbances.
• Stephen defined nuisance as, ‘to be anything done to the hurt or
annoyance of the lands, tenement or hereditaments of another, and not
amounting to a trespass’.
• Blackstone, ‘nuisance as some thing that worketh hurt, inconvenience
or damage’.
• Winfield, ‘ nuisance is incapable of exact definition but for the purpose of
law of tort, it may be described as unlawful interference with a person’s
use or enjoyment of land or of some right over, or in connection with it.’
• Salmond, ‘the wrong of nuisance consists in causing or allowing .
without lawful justification (but so as to common to trespass) the
escape of any deterious thing from his land or from elsewhere into
land in possession of the plaintiff eg. Water, smoke, smell, fumes, gas,
noise, heat, vibration, electricity, disease, germs, animals.
• Clark and Lindsell, ‘nuisance is an act or omission which is an
interference with disturbance of or annoyance to a person in the
exercise or enjoyment of –
a.Right belonging to him as a member of public when it is a public
nuisance, or
b.His ownership or occupation of land, or some easement, quasi
easement, or other right used or enjoyed in connection with land,
when it is private nuisance.’
 KINDS OF
NUISANCE

1. Public
nuisance

2. Private
nuisance
 1. PUBLIC
NUISANCE

• Section 268 of Indian Penal Code define public

nuisance as , ‘an act or omission which causes
any common injury or annoyance to the public
or to the people in general who dwell or occupy
property in vicinity, or which must necessarily
cause injury, obstruction, danger, or annoyance
to persons who may have occasion to use any
public right.
CASE : SOLTAU V. DEHELD

• In a locality there was a chapel, whose bells

kept ringing all the time without a break.
• This caused nuisance to the residens of
locality.
• The court ordered the chapel to ring the bell
only at specfied timings.
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS FOR PUBLIC
NUISANCE

• A person must have done an act or an illegal omission.

• Such act or ommission
i. Must cause any common injury, danger or
annoyance to the public or
to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the
vicinity
ii. Must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger, or
annoyance to person who may have occasion to use any
public right.
 .
• In public nuisance, a private person cannot bring action. But
action may be possible under sec. 133 of Criminal Procedure
Code. Generally action is taken by State against person
causing public nuisance.
• A private person can take action against public nuisance if -
1. There must be specific damage.
2. Injury must be direct.
3. Injury must be substantial.
 2. PRIVATE
NUISANCE
• Underhill, ‘ a private nuisance is some
unauthorized use of a man’s own property
causing damage to the property of another or
some unauthorized interference with the property
or proprietary right of another causing damage,
but not amounting to trespass.’
CASE: HRISTLE V. DAVEY.
• The plantiff, a music teacher gave music claasse lessons to her
students .
• The defendant,her immediate neighbour was disturbed an account
of these classes.
• She decided to retaliate by making noises, knocking on the wall
constantly
• For the disturbing classes
• The court held that the defendant liable for nuisance.
KINDS OF PRIVATE
NUISANCE

• Generally speaking the wrong of private falls under

two classes
a) Damage to property
b) Physical discomfort
 A. DAMAGE TO
PROPERTY

• In the case of damage to property any sensible

injury will be sufficient to support an action.
Nuisances of this class arise from manufacturing
works, chains etc. Ex. – smoke, fumes, gas,
noise, water, filth, trees, animals,
 B. PHYSICAL
DISCOMFORT
• In the case of physical discomfort the act complained of
must be
1.in excess of the natural and ordinary course of
enjoyment of the property.
2.materially interfering with the ordinary comfort of
human existence.
Eg. Carrying any trade causing nuisance, obstruction of
light, pollution of air, noise, water, land.
• Discomfort should be such as an ordinary or an average
person in the locality and environment would not put up
with or tolerate.
• For discomfort degree or intensity, duration, locality, and
mode of use of property is considered.
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
NUISANCE
PRIVATE NUISANCE
PUBLIC NUISANCE
1. It is infringement of right of a private
person. 1. It is infringement of public right.

2. The injury is caused to the individual. 2. It causes injury to every person of the public.

3. In due course of time under certain 3. The lapse of time cannot legalize public nuisance
circumstances the private nuisance
may be legalized.
4. A person may bring action only if he sustain spec
5. It is actionable per se
4. The injured person may bring an action.

5. Here plaintiff must prove interference

with his enjoyment of land
 WHO CAN BE
SUED?

Plaintiff can institute suit against-

i.Any person is liable for a nuisance who either creates or causes it,
or continues its existence or allows it to continue or who authorises
its creation or continuance.
ii.Prima facie the occupier of premises is the person liable to third
parties for nuisance on or arising from the premises.
REMEDIES FOR
NUISANCE

1. Abatement
2. Damages
3. Injunction
4. Criminal action under the provisions of Indian Penal
Code and Code of Criminal Procedure
 DEFENCES IN CASES OF
NUISANCE
1. Grant - It is a valid defence to an action for nuisance that the said
nuisance is under the terms of a grant.
2. Prescription - It is a special defence in cases of nuisance; if it is
used peaceably and openly enjoyed as an easement and as of right
without interruption and for 20 years. This is not useful in public
nuisance.
3. Statutory authority - If defendant has committed the act complained
under statutory authority and all precaution required under law are
complied; he is not liable.
 FOLLOWING ARE NOT
DEFENCES

• That the plaintiff himself come to nuisance.

• In case of continuous nuisance, all possible care has been taken.

• Defendant merely making reasonable use or property.

• It would confer benefit to public at large.

•Don’t Make Nuisance

THANK YOU