Defences of Nuisance

DEFENCES OF NUISANCE(8)
THERE ARE MANY WRONGS WHICH FALL UNDER THE LAW OF

TORT AND NUISANCE IS ONE OF THEM. THE WORD NUISANCE IS
DERIVED FROM THE FRENCH WORD “NUIRE” WHICH MEANS TO DO
HURT, OR TO ANNOY. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO UNLAWFULLY
INTERFERE WITH SOMEONE’S ENJOYMENT OR USE OF LAND AND
CREATE NUISANCE.
NUISANCE BASICALLY MEANS UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH A
PERSON’S USE OR ENJOYMENT OF LAND OR IN CONNECTION WITH
IT.
NUISANCE IS BASED ON THE MAXIM OF SIC UTERE TWO UP
ALIENUM NON LEADS.
NOW LET US DISCUSS THE VARIOUS DEFINITION OF NUISANCE
SAID BY VARIOUS JURISTS.
1. BLACKSTONE: ACCORDING TO HIM NUISANCE IS AS
SOMETHING THAT ‘WORKETH HURT,INCONVINIENCE, OR
DAMAGE’.
2. JUSTICE MOULTI: ACCORDING TO HIM NUISANCE IS AS AN
EXCESSIVE USE OF SOME PRIVATE RIGHTS WHEREBY A PERSON
EXPOSES HIS NEIGHBOUR’S PROPRTY TO DAMAGE.
NUISANCE HA SOME ESSENTIALS. THOSE ARE:
1. UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE
2. INTEREFERENCE WITH PERSON’S USE OR ENJOYMENT OF
LAND
3. DAMAGE
THE DEFENCES OF NUISANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS:
There are two valid defences for nuisance:
1.Prescription:
A title acquired by use and time, and allowed by Law; as when a man claims
any thing, because he, his ancestors, or they whose estate he hath, have had
possession for the period prescribed by law. This is there in Section 26,
Limitation Act & Section 15 Easements Act.
Three things are necessary to establish a right by prescription:
Use and occupation or enjoyment;
The identity of the thing enjoyed;
That it should be adverse to the rights of some other person.
A special defence available in the case of nuisance is prescription if it has been
peaceable and openly enjoyed as an easement and as of right without
interruption and for twenty years. After a nuisance has been continuously in
existence for twenty years prescriptive right to continue it is acquired as an
easement appurtenant to the land on which it exists.
On the expiration of this period the nuisance becomes legalized ab initio, as if it

had been authorized in its commencement by a grant from the owner of servient
land. The time runs, not from the day when the cause of the nuisance began but
from the day when the nuisance began. The easement can be acquired only
against specific property, not against the entire world.
In Mohini Mohan v. Kashinath Roy[18], , it was held that no right to hold kirtan
upon another's land can be acquired as an easement. Such a right may be
acquired by custom.
In Sturges v. Bridgman[19] A had used a certain heavy machinery for his

business, for more than 20 years. B, a physician neighbour, constructed a
consulting room adjoining A's house only shortly before the present action and
then found himself seriously inconvenienced by the noise of A's machinery.B
brought an action against A for abatement of the nuisance.
It was held that B must succeed. A cannot plead prescription since time runs not
from the date when the cause of the nuisance began but from the day when the
nuisance began.
2.Statutory Authority
Where a statute has authorised the doing of a particular act or the use of land in
a particular way, all remedies whether by way of indictment or action, are taken
away; provided that every reasonable precaution consistent with the exercise of
the statutory powers has been taken. Statutory authority may be either absolute
or conditional.
In case of absolute authority, the statute allows the act notwithstanding the fact
that it must necessarily cause a nuisance or any other form of injury.
In case of conditional authority the State allows the act to be done only if it can
be without causing nuisance or any other form of injury, and thus it calls for the
exercise of due care and caution and due regard for private rights.
In Vaughan v. Taff Vale Rly[20], The defendants who had authority by Statute
to locomotive engines on their railway, were held not liable for a fire caused by
the escape of sparks.
INEFFECTUAL DEFENCES:
THERE ARE SOME DEFENCES WHICH ARE VOID. THOSE ARE:
1. NUISANCE RESULTED DUE TO THE ACTS OF SOME OTHER
PERSONS OR MANY PERSONS.
2. NUISNACE WHICH HAS BEEN DONE IS BENEFICIAL TO THE
PUBLIC.
3. REASONABLE CARE HAS BEEN TAKEN TO PREVENT SUCH
NUISANCE.
4. PLANTIFF CAME TO THE PLACE OF NUISANCE.
THESE ARE SOME INEFFECTUAL DEFENCES WHICH THE
DEFENDANT CAN’T CLAIM.
THUS THIS WAS ALL ABOUT THE DEFENCES OF NUISANCE.

Defences of Nuisance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defences of Nuisance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defences of Nuisance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEFENCES OF NUISANCE(8)

THERE ARE MANY WRONGS WHICH FALL UNDER THE LAW OF

On the expiration of this period the nuisance becomes legalized ab initio, as if it

In Sturges v. Bridgman[19] A had used a certain heavy machinery for his

THUS THIS WAS ALL ABOUT THE DEFENCES OF NUISANCE.

You might also like