Distance between the buildings is not the essence.

I will first deal with the Second Appeal.

2. Plaintiff in O.S.No.677 of 1989 on the file of District Munsif’s Court, Perambalur, is the appellant in the Second Appeal. She filed the suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent (defendant) from starting any rice mill or flour mill. According to her, installation of such a mill will cause grave nuisance and also affect her health. It is said that she is residing in Ward No.1, House No. 103-C, in Vadakkalur Village, Perambalur Taluk, and the defendant is making arrangements to instal a flour mill with 25 H.P. within a distance of 25 feet. According to her, if it is allowed, she will be put to serious hardship.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the above allegations were denied. She only said that due to personal animosity, plaintiff has filed the suit. She has also said that the plaintiff is not residing in the address mentioned in the plaint, and the rice mill is proposed to be installed at a place far away from the plaintiff’s property. She has also said that in between the proposed mill and the socalled plaintiff’s house, there are two big walls having a width of 1 1/2 feet each. There cannot be any question of sound pollution or any annoyance to the plaintiff. She prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial court, as per judgment dated 30.7.1990, dismissed the suit. For that purpose, it relied on the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced, by the parties. Exs.A-1 to A-15 were marked on the side of plaintiff, and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked on the side of defendant. Exs.C-1 and C-2 are respectively the report and plan submitted by the Advocate-Commissioner. Plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and also another independent witness as P. W.2. Defendant examined herself as D.W. 1 and two other witnesses as D.Ws.2 and 3.

5. The trial court came to the conclusion that no legal evidence was adduced by the plaintiff and, therefore, she is not entitled to any relief. It also took into consideration the permissions granted by various authorities, in favour of defendant and held that in view of that it cannot he presumed that there will be any nuisance to any person. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the suit.

6. Plaintiff filed A.S.No.112 of 1992, on the file of Principal District Judge’s Court, Trichy. The lower appellate court also confirmed all the findings of the trial court and dismissed the Appeal. The concurrent judgments of both the courts below are challenged in this Second Appeal.

7. The following substantial question of law was raised for consideration at the time of admission of Second Appeal:

8. On a reading of the substantial question of law mentioned above, I do not think that it

“Whether the lower appellate court failed to consider the distance of 25 feet in between the appellant and the respondent’s rice mill?”

is a question of law. The lower appellate court has considered the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that there cannot be any nuisance, and no legal evidence has been let in by plaintiff. According to me, it is not the distance between the two buildings that requires consideration, but the only question to be considered is, whether the running of a flour mill or rice mill will cause nuisance to the plaintiff, which will amount to an actionable claim. For this, I take support from the decision reported in Ram Lal v. Mustafabad Oil and Cotton Ginning Factory, A.I.R. 1968 P. and H. 399, wherein a learned Judge of that High Court has held that a remedy can be sought for only if a nuisance becomes an actionable claim. In paragraph 25 of that judgment (at page 402), it has been held thus:

“From the review of authorities, the following principles may be deduced:

.(1) In determining whether an actionable nuisance exists, the degree or the extent of the annoyance or the inconvenience is to be considered. For what may amount to a nuisance in one locality may in another place and under d