Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86

    Facts: Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86

    In a building, Gur Prasad and others had a shop on the ground floor in which they had installed and run a flour mill machine. The appellant, Radhey Shyam, had his professional office on the first floor in the very same building. It was alleged that if the appellant placed his palm on the wall of any room, vibrations could be felt because of the running of the machines installed. Continuous slight tremors could be felt by the appellant as well as by the residents of the building.

    The residents and appellant were losing their mental peace and it was also impacting their health because of the noise generated by the flour mill. The locality already had two other flour mills installed on the southern side of the building. The other two flour mills were out of the residential area and had a tin shed covering them. The respondent was a tenant at the appellant. Before installing the flour mill and an oil expeller machine, the appellant ran a grocery store in the shop.

    Issues raised: –

    • Was running the flour mill and an oil expeller machine constitute an actionable nuisance?
    • Were noise and vibrations from the challenged machines causing enough nuisance, disturbance, and annoyance to grant a final injunction to the appellant?
    • Which principle of private nuisance is applicable?

    History of the case: –

    The case being analyzed is Second Appeal No. 133 of 1971 in the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). The appellant in the following case is Radhey Shyam and the respondent is Gur Prasad. The Judge of the case was Justice T.S. Misra. The case was decided on 25.08.1977.

    On 23rd December 1964, Gur Prasad Saxena and another filed suit No. 595 of 1964 against Radhey Shyam and five others for a final injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from installing and running a flour mill and oil expeller machine in his premises. The Trial court dismissed the suit, as running a flour mill and an oil expeller machine does not constitute an actionable nuisance. The appellant filed another appeal challenging the decision of the Trial Court.

    Judgement: –

    The Allahabad High Court decided that a final injunction is issuable against the defendant. The court added that since installation of a flour mill and an oil expeller machine added substantial noise to a noisy locality which qualifies as a hindrance in the public peace of the plaintiff as well as to the residents of the building. The appellant and defendant lived in a noisy locality with many flour mills. There was substantial addition of noise by the appellant’s flour mill and oil expeller. The noise directly affected the physical comforts of the defendant and his family on the first floor.

    Understanding The Tort of Nuisance - Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86 - Law of Tort - Nuisance can be understood as unlawfully interfering with someone’s personal use or enjoyment of land
    Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86 – Law of Tort – Nuisance can be understood as unlawfully interfering with someone’s personal use or enjoyment of land

    The quantum of damages privately nuisance doesn’t spend on the amount of those enjoying the land in question it also follows that the sole person entitled to sue for loss in amenity value as in the case of diminution of the land is the owner or the occupier with the right to exclusive possession[1]. Thus, only the appellant had the right to sue, the wife and the children of the appellant don’t enjoy exclusive possession and therefore have no right over the land. The appellant was entitled to an injunction against the respondent and his appeal was also accepted against the decision of the Trial Court.

    Rationale: Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86:

    “Even in a noisy locality, if there is a substantial addition to the noise by the introduction of some machine, instrument or performance at defendant’s premises, which materially affects the physical comforts of the occupants of the plaintiff’s house, then also the noise will amount to an actionable nuisance.”[2]

    Conclusion: –

    Nuisance can be understood as unlawfully interfering with someone’s personal use or enjoyment of land. These acts can be interference in pertinence to safety, comfort, or health. Nuisance can be created as a result of the negligence of the wrongdoer. The two valid defenses for nuisance are prescription and statutory authority.

    According to Salmond, “The Wrong of nuisance consists in causing or allowing without lawful justification the escape of any deleterious thing from his land or from elsewhere into land in possession of the plaintiff, e.g., water, smoke, fumes, gas, noise, heat, vibration, electricity, disease, germs, animals”.[3]

    [1] https://www.legalbites.in/nuisance-under-law-of-torts/#_ftn1

    [2] https://fdocuments.in/document/radhey-shiam-v-gur-prasad-sharma.html

    [3] John Salmond Salmond on Torts (16th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1973) at 52

    Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86 – Law of Tort – Nuisance can be understood as unlawfully interfering with someone’s personal use or enjoyment of land Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86 – Law of Tort – Nuisance can be understood as unlawfully interfering with someone’s personal use or enjoyment of land Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86 – Law of Tort – Nuisance can be understood as unlawfully interfering with someone’s personal use or enjoyment of land Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86 – Law of Tort – Nuisance can be understood as unlawfully interfering with someone’s personal use or enjoyment of land

    Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86 – Law of Tort – Nuisance can be understood as unlawfully interfering with someone’s personal use or enjoyment of land Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86 – Law of Tort – Nuisance can be understood as unlawfully interfering with someone’s personal use or enjoyment of land Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86 – Law of Tort – Nuisance can be understood as unlawfully interfering with someone’s personal use or enjoyment of land Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86 – Law of Tort – Nuisance can be understood as unlawfully interfering with someone’s personal use or enjoyment of land

    Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86 – Law of Tort – Nuisance can be understood as unlawfully interfering with someone’s personal use or enjoyment of land Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86 – Law of Tort – Nuisance can be understood as unlawfully interfering with someone’s personal use or enjoyment of land Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86 – Law of Tort – Nuisance can be understood as unlawfully interfering with someone’s personal use or enjoyment of land Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86 – Law of Tort – Nuisance can be understood as unlawfully interfering with someone’s personal use or enjoyment of land