Nuisance

•Kinds of nuisance
•Public and private nuisance or tort of nuisance
•Unreasonable interference with use or enjoyment of land
•Nuisance on highways
•Defences
Kinds of nuisance
Public nuisance or common nuisance
Winterbottom v Lord Derby,1857
Campbell v Padington corporation, 1911
Dr. Ram Raj Singh v Babulal, 1982
268. Public nuisance.—A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any
act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury,
danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or
occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury,
obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use
any public right. A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it c
Civil Suits On Public Nuisance And Other Wrongful Acts Affecting Public
Introduction
Whether it is the noise of the loudspeakers or the dug up roads, the
occurrences of public nuisance are numerous. Unnecessary and incessant
honking of horns to blocking the sun in a public park, the concept of nuisance
is spanned in a vast sphere of our lives. While earlier, nuisance claims were
generally instituted by individuals for damages, public nuisance claims
through class litigation and public interest litigations are a relatively new
addition in the Indian context. It has to be realized that Environment
protection is not a pre-occupation of the educated and the affluent and the
disposal and control of toxic waste and governmental regulation of polluting
industries is public interest oriented. It is nothing but immense insensitivity of
the Indian society that the biggest issue of public nuisance, environment-
deterioration, goes unnoticed by most of the people, save a few public spirited
people, who take up this responsibility of preserving the environment upon
themselves. Public interest litigations (hereinafter PILs) have emerged as an
instrument to set the wheels into action and work towards a sustainable
environment.
 1. Public Nuisance In Cpc
Public nuisance derives support from section 91 of CPC that lays down the procedure for
initiation of a civil suit for the offense of public nuisance. Being purely procedural, the
section gives the flexibility of seeking parallel remedies in criminal jurisdiction or
damages under law of torts. The marginal note of section 91 reads: public nuisance and
other wrongful acts affecting the public. Inclusion of ‘other wrongful acts affecting public’
besides public nuisance widens the scope of the section to incorporate various situations
which although do not fall under the accepted straitjacket definitions of nuisance, yet are
a cause of discomfort and inconvenience to the public. For instance, courts have read
slaughtering of cattle on a public street or encroachment upon a public street by
construction of buildings as legitimate cause of action for a claim for public nuisance by
the virtue of it being a wrongful act against public.
Section 91 of CPC states that
(1) In the case of a public nuisance the Advocate General or two or more persons having
obtained the consent in writing of the Advocate General, may institute a suit, though no
special damage has been caused, for a declaration and injunction or for such other relief
as may be appropriate to the circumstances of the case.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any right of suit
which may exist independently of its provisions.
Thus the Supreme Court has not been hesitant in prohibiting nuisance causing acts like
blowing loud air horns, bursting firecrackers after 10 P.M. at night which obstructed right
to sleep at night and to leisure or even noise cause by religious activities , and other acts
of public nuisance obstructing public welfare and greater good
private nuisance or tort of nuisance
Essentials
•Unreasonable interference
•Interference with the use of land
•Damage
Unreasonable interference
Radhey shyam v Gur prasad, 1978
Shanmugavel Chettiar v Sri Ramkumar Ginning Firm, 1987
Usha Ben v Bhagya laxmi Chitra Mandir, 1978
Sensitive plaintiff
Robinson v kilvert, 1889
Does nuisance cannote state of affairs
Stone v Bolton, 1949
Dollman v Hillman Ltd, 1941
Malice
Allen v Flood, 1898
Christie v Davey, 1893
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmet, 1936
Interference with the use or enjoyment of
land
1)Injury to property 2)injury to comfort health or
occupants of certain property
1)Injury to property
St. Helen’s Smelting co. v Tipping, 1865

Nuisance to incorporeal property

1)Interference with the right of support of land and
buildings
Stroyan v Knowles
Right to support by grant or prescription
Dalton v Angus
Interference with right to light and air
2)injury to comfort health or occupants of certain property
3)Damage

Nuisance on highways
Dwyer v mansfield, 1946
Ware v Garston Haulage Co Ltd, 1914
Leanse v Egerton, 1943

Projections
Noble v Harrison, 1926
Tarry v Ashton, 1876
Caminer v Northern & London Investment trust Ltd. 1951
Defences
Effectual defences
Ineffectual defences

Effectual defences
1)Prescriptive right to commit nuisance
Struges v Bridgman, 1879
2)Statutory Authority
Ineffectual defences
Nuisance due to act of others
Public good
Reasonable care
Plaintiff coming to nuisance