Skip to main content

Nuisance under Law of tort And IPC

 Nuisance Under Law of Torts


Introduction

Nuisance as a tort means an unlawful interference with the person’s use and

enjoyment of land or some right over, or in connection with it. Acts interfering

with the comfort, health or safety are the examples of it. The interference may

be in any way eg noise, vibrations, heat, smoke, smell, fumes, water, gas,

electricity.


Definitions given by different Scholars

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 something that work to 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

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.’

Nuisance should be distinguished from trespass. Trespass is (i) a direct

physical interference (ii) with the plaintiff’s possession of land (iii) through

some material or tangible objects. Both nuisance and trespass are similar in so

far as in either case the plaintiff has to show his possession of land. The two

may even coincide, some kind of nuisance being also continuing trespass. The

point of distinction between the two are as follows-

If interference is direct, the wrong is trespass, if it is consequential, it amounts

to nuisance. Planting a tree on another's land is trespass. But when a person

plants a tree over his own land and the roots or branches project into or over

the land of another person, that nuisance.


Kinds of Nuisance

1. Public Nuisance

2. Private Nuisance


 Public Nuisance

Under Section 3 (48) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the words mean a public nuisance

defined by the Indian Penal Code.

Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code, defines it as “an act or illegal omission which causes

any common injury, danger or annoyance, 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.”

Private Nuisance

Private nuisance is the using or authorizing the use of one’s property, or of anything under

one’s control, so as to injuriously affect an owner or occupier of property by physically

injuring his property or affecting its enjoyment by interfering materially with his health,

comfort or convenience.

In contrast to public nuisance, private nuisance is an act affecting some particular individual

or individuals as distinguished from the public at large. The remedy in an action for private

nuisance is a civil action for damages or an injunction or both and not an indictment.


Public nuisance is a crime whereas private nuisance is a civil wrong. Public nuisance is

interference with the right of public in general and is punishable as an offence. Obstructing

a public way by digging a trench, or constructing structure on it are example of public

nuisance. Although such obstruction may cause inconvenience to many persons but none

can be allowed to bring a civil action for that, otherwise there may be hundreds of actions

for a single act of public nuisance. To avoid multiplicity of suits, the law makes public

nuisance only an offence punishable under criminal law.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more