Browse by Stream
QnA
Home
QnA
Go To Your Study Dashboard

Get Answers to all your Questions

header-bg qa
  • Home
  • Law
  • Jeevan and Pavan were neighbours in residential locality. Pavan started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jeevan, who could not put up with and kind of continuous

Jeevan and Pavan were neighbours in residential locality. Pavan started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jeevan, who could not put up with and kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.

Option: 1

Pavan is liable, because he should not have started typing class in his house


Option: 2

Pavan is liable, because as his neighbour, he should have realized Jeevan’s delicate nature.


Option: 3

Pavan is liable, because typing sound did disturb everyone. 


Option: 4

Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan.


Answers (1)

best_answer

Private Nuisance can be defined it as "any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a (claimant's) land or his use or enjoyment of that land". Private nuisance, unlike public nuisance, is only a tort, and damages for personal injuries are not recoverable. Hence, none of the answers are correct. Here, Pawan is not liable. The reason is typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan. Using the standards of a reasonable man the sound of typing cannot be said a disturbing and hence it is reasonable one. Hence the cprrect option is d. 

Posted by

Shailly goel

View full answer

Similar Questions

Trending Articles/News

anam-khan

Intend to complete CLAT UG hearing at earliest for results to be declared: Delhi HC
anam-khan

CLAT 2025 LIVE: Delhi High Court reserves UG verdict, PG hearing on April 21

Latest Question