Daily practice questions for CLAT - (22 December 2023)
The word nuisance has been derived from the French word ‘nuire’, which means to hurt or to annoy. Ordinarily, nuisance means disturbances. According to Winfield, nuisance is incapable of exact definition. But for the purpose of the law of tort, it may be described as unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or of some right over, or in connection with it. Therefore, whoever causes unreasonable interference to the right of another over his property and space is causing nuisance. On the other hand, trespass to goods refers to the unintentional or intentional interference with the goods that are in the possession of others, without any lawful justification can be termed as trespass to goods. Unlike trespass to land, trespasses to goods are also wrong against the possession of goods. Hence, any direct physical interference with goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass of goods.
- A. Yes, because Lavanya should consider Kanak’s illness. They are neighbours, after all, and should be considerate to each other. B. Yes, because Kanak is getting disturbed and her health is deteriorating because of the dance lessons being conducted by L. C. No, because Lavanya interference is not unreasonable. It is just that Kanak is a sensitive plaintiff. D. No, because India is a free country and Lavanya can do whatever she chooses to.
- A. L is liable because her dance practice causes unreasonable interference with K’s sleep. B. L is liable because she could easily choose some other time of the day. C. L is not liable because she has been doing this for over 20 years, and has now acquired a prescriptive right to continue with it unchallenged. D. L is not liable because it is her wish as to what she wants to do inside her house.
- A. Vikas cannot be held responsible for the trespass of goods, as he was under a wrong belief. B. Vikas can be held responsible for trespassing goods. C. Vikas has not committed any wrong. D. None of the above
- A. Yes, because the books were in Harsh’s possession, and trespass is a tort against possession and not against ownership. B. Yes, because she should not snatch things just like that. It is bad manners. C. No, because she was the rightful owner of the books. D. No, because the books do not belong to Harsh and no matter whom they belong to, Harsh cannot sue.
