MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Judge, J
Abdul Hakim and Another v. Ahmad Kha
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendants' use of latrine was established as nuisance. (Para 1 , 10 , 11 , 40) |
| 2. respondent's claims of nuisance were confirmed through evidence. (Para 2 , 6 , 8 , 12) |
| 3. legal principles of nuisance applied justify injunction. (Para 17 , 34) |
| 4. nuisance requires consideration of property rights and local laws. (Para 20 , 21 , 24) |
1. This is defendants' appeal from a reversing decree dt. 2-9-1974 passed by the Additional District Judge, Guna, in Civil Appeal No. 86 of 1979 arising out of the decree dt. 11-7-69 of the Civil Judge Class II, Mungaoli, whereby the respondent's suit (C.S. No. 47 - A / 66 instituted on 4-7-66) for a mandatory injunction for closure of the 'nikas', 'mori' and 'Khidki' of the appellants newly constructed latrine was dismissed.
2. The following facts were admitted in the written statement.
There is a 3' X 31/2' wide lane running east - west between the respondent's house to its north and the appellants' house to the south of the said lane at Athaipura Ward No. 7 in the town of Mungaoli. With the sanction of the Municipal Committee in 1964 the appellants opened a door in their house in the northern wing which is situated adjacent to, and along
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.