The main legal principle established is the court's authority to order suitable precautions, including the possibility of a permanent injunction, to prevent a private nuisance causing special injury.

Kinkhede, A J C—This second appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit filed by them for a permanent injunction against the defendant on the ground that the latter opened a door abutting on plaintiffs ota and constructed a cess-pool and latrine on Municipal land near their house. The parties are neighbours. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendant has committed an actionable wrong in constructing the cess-pool and latrine which causes nuisance to them. They therefore want that the defendant be ordered not to have any building, door or latrine or cess-pool on the land A B C in dispute.

2. The defence was that the ota belonged to the defendant and that the latrine and cess-pool do not cause any nuisance to plaintiffs. The trial Court held that the ota belonged to plaintiffs and that the latrine and cess-pool do cause nuisance to plaintiffs. It accordingly passed a decree for a permanent injunction. The defendant therefore appealed to the Additional District Judge's Court. The learned Additional District Judge differed from the Court and held that plaintiffs failed to prove that the ota belonged to them. As regards the site on which the latrine and the cesspool stand it came to the conclusion that the question of title has no bearing in the case for the title does not admittedly rest in the plaintiff and plaintiff has therefore no right to claim any relief on that : score * * * the site may belong to any one, but it is apparent that defendant has no right to commit nuisance on the land even if it were owned by himself,

3. The question then was whether the action of the defendant could be called a nuisance and whether the same constituted an actionable wrong. That the latrine and the cess-pool are a source of nuisance to the plaintiffs is found by the Courts below as a fact and this is not disputed before me. The lower appellate Court wanted to relieve the plaintiffs of that nuisance by trying to find out whether it could be located elsewhere so as to cause no nuisance to plaintiffs. But the findings of the first Court which it had called up establish beyond doubt that the latrine and cess-pool if shifted to another side of the premises in dispute would be a source of nuisance to another neighbour. This confirms the finding that the latrine and the cess-pool is going to be a permanent source of trouble and nuisance to the defendant's neighbours whoever they may be. Why of all others the plaintiffs must suffer the inconvenience I cannot understand. The ratio decidendi of the cases reported Jafar Sahib v. Kadir Rahiman [1888] 12 Bom. 634 and Rama Rao v. Martha Sequeira, 1919 37 MadLJ 224 is that if the privy be found to be a private nuisance the owner must be ordered to remove it altogether or shift it to such distance from the injured party's dwelling as will not cause any discomfort or danger to the health of the inmates of his house. The case in Amarendra Nath Dey v. Baranagore Jute Factory Co. Ltd., 1923 AIR(Cal) 271 contemplates the imposition of certain conditions or restrictions, or even the adoption of precautionary measures for the prevention of injuries in the future and reservation of a liberty to the party apprehending the injury of bringing a fresh suit in the event of the threatened injury sought to be prevented by a quia timet action becoming an actual nuisance.

4. It therefore, appears that it is within the jurisdiction of a Court, in the case of an actual nuisance, to insist upon the owner of the latrine or other source of nuisance taking due care for preventing offensive smells from emanating from them and causing private nuisance to his neighbour. The defendant in such cases could be ordered to build his latrine after the latest scientific patterns with trap doors, &c, which would minimize the chances of its being a source of trouble and inconvenience to his neighbour. He could also be restrained in regard to its capacity being Overtaxed and thus becoming an inevitable source of private nuisance. He coul