Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"(1) Whether no tortious liability arises against the defendants because they are merely making a lawful use of their own land.?
(2) Whether the learned District Judge was in error in laying undue emphasis on scientific evidence and has for that reason not examined the evidence fully or with exactitude and which has resulted in a misreading of evidence?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to complain of the alleged nuisance on account of the flow of water over his small platform in absence of the direct pleading on that account?
"From the aforesaid authoritative statements of law it is correct to conclude that the defendant cannot escape his liability in the case before me on the ground that he Is only making a lawful use of his land. If the plaintiff succeeds in establishing that his user amounts to a private nuisance adding to his discomfort he has a cause of action. I am, therefore, unable to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that a complaint of nuisance (which is precisely the complaint in the case before me) could be completely answered by a broad defence that the defendant is using his land and that absolves him of his tortious liability."

23. Having carefully read the judgment I am satisfied that the question whether the impugned construction caused such an obstruction that the foul air was diverted on that account from the narrow lane and caused any nuisance, to the plaintiff was open for decision by the learned District Judge. Under point No, 1 the passage that I have extracted also suggests the same thing. What was negatived was the broad defence that by using his own property the defendant was absolved in tortious liability.