MyQuestionIcon

2

You visited us 2 times! Enjoying our articles? Unlock Full Access!

Article 15

PRINCIPLE: Nu...

Question

PRINCIPLE: Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use of enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. If the interference is 'direct', the wrong is trespass; whereas, if the interference is 'consequential', it amounts to nuisance.

FACTS: 'A' plants a tree on his land. However, he allows its branches to project over the land of 'B'.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

A

'A' has committed trespass.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

B

'A' has committed nuisance.

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

C

'A' has not committed nuisance.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

D

None of the above.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is A 'A' has committed nuisance.
Nuisance can be defined as common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. It can be further classified as public and private.
Trespass to the person is a tort which involves wrongs being done to an individual. It also refers to interference with another person's land or personal property. A common defense that can be used if one were sued for trespass is the individual was given consent by the owner of the land or property.

In the above case,A has committed nuisance.

Suggest Corrections

thumbs-up

0

Similar questions

Q. Principle Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. If the interference is 'direct', the wrong is trespass; whereas if the interference is 'consequential'. it amounts to nuisance.
Facts 'A' plants a tree on his land. However, he allows of its branches to project over the land of 'B'.
Which of the following derivations is correct?

Q. PRINCIPLE: Trespass to land means direct interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land of another person or doing the same through some tangible object(s).

FACTS: 'A' throws some stones upon his neighbour's (B's) premises.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

Q. Principle Trespass to land means direct interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. Trespass could be committed either by a person himself intering the land of another person or doing the same through some tangible object(s).
Facts 'A' throws some stones upon his neighbour's (B's) premises
Which of the following derivations is correct?

Q. PRINCIPLE: Nuisance as a tort (civil wrong) means an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.
FACT: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant's shop who having a license to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only 1Kg of onion per ration card. The queues extended on to the highway and also caused some obstruction to the neighbouring shops. The neighbouring shopkeepers brought an action for nuisance against the defendant.

Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it is a nuisance in tort. The fact that the plaintiff "came to the nuisance" by knowingly acquiring property in the vicinity of the defendant's premises is not a defense to nuisance. However, an act cannot be a nuisance if it is imperatively demanded by public convenience. Thus, when the public welfare requires it, a nuisance may be permitted for special purposes.

FACTUAL SITUATION: D owned and occupied an estate about two miles from RAF Wittering, an operational and training base for Harrier Jump jets. D claimed that they suffered severe notice disturbance every time the Harrier pilots carried out training circuits: an average 70 times a day. D alleged that the noise nuisance constituted a very serious interference with their enjoyment of their land. D instituted judicial proceedings against the defendants, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000.
The MoD denied liability and raised defence that the Harrier training was undertaken for the public benefit and that they had prescriptive right over the land as D had bought their property at a time when RAF Wittering was already established so he cannot claim compensation as he already knew about existence of RAF Wittering near his property.

View More

Join BYJU'S Learning Program

similar_icon

Related Videos

lock

Article 15

CIVICS

Watch in App

explore_more_icon

Explore more

Standard VII Civics

Join BYJU'S Learning Program

CrossIcon