AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) Legal-Aptitude: Questions 250 - 250 of 254

Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 254 questions. Access all new questions- tracking exam pattern and syllabus. View the complete topic-wise distribution of questions. Unlimited Access, Unlimited Time, on Unlimited Devices!

View Sample Explanation or View Features.

Rs. 200.00 -OR-

How to register? Already Subscribed?

Question 250

Appeared in Year: 2020

Question

MCQ▾

Legal Principles:

(1) Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.

(2) Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity, pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.

(3) A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbour.

(4) In cases of nuisance, the court may grant an injunction restricting the nuisance from occurring in the future when the loss could not adequately compensate.

Facts: Tina purchased a house in an estate which was adjacent to a functioning, in use, cricket field. The members of Super Eleven Cricket Club used to play Cricket in that field for over 70 years. After Tina moved into the property, cricket balls began to fly over the field՚s protective barrier and into the Tina՚s property. Tina complained, which caused Super Eleven Cricket Club to erect a chain link fence. This improved matters as less balls were now flying onto the Tina՚s property but it did not fully solve the issue as some still got through. The club offered Tina to pay for any damage done or injuries received as a result of the balls landing onto her land, including fixing any broken windows and similar. Tina, however, refused all of the club՚s offers and filed a case against the members of the Club alleging nuisance and negligence and requested court to grant an injunction to prevent the club from playing cricket on their ground. Tina argued that even though the club offered to make good any damage and that there had been no injuries, she was not able to use her garden when matches were being played for fear of being struck by a cricket ball. Decide.

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

The members of the Club are liable for nuisance and court should pass an order of injunction. The plaintiff՚s right to enjoyment of her property outweighs the right of the members of the Club to play cricket.

b.

The members of Club are not liable as Tina was aware about the activities of the Cricket Club and had willingly purchased the property.

c.

The members of the Club are liable for nuisance and court should pass an order of compensation as the injury is small and could be compensated in terms of money.

d.

The Club is not liable as they have already taken sufficient measures to mitigate the effects of their act and are ready and willing to do so in future too.

Developed by: