Directon:In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple-choice answers. You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: Private nuisance is the interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises and it is actionable by the person whose rights have been disturbed.Facts: Ashish and Salma were next door neighbours who lived in the same building. Ashish was a chain-smoker and smoked a number of cigarettes everyday within the confines of his house which entered Salmaandrsquo;s house too. Salma feared that the passive smoking she was being subjected to would cause her health complications and bough herself air-fresheners and purification devices as a result of which electricity bill shot up. She complained about Ashish to the building secretary who agreed with her. Finally, Salma filed a case against Ashish asking for compensation on the grounds of nuisance. Will Salma succeed?a)Salma will not succeed because there is no law against smoking in India.b)Salma will succeed because even after her complaints to the building secretary, Ashish continued to smoke.c)Salma will succeed as Ashishandrsquo;s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted private nuisance.d)Salma will not succeed as she is being paranoid and as long as Ashish smokes inside the four walls of his house, he cannot be alleged of causing nuisance.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directon:In this section every question is ap...

Directon: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple-choice answers. You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.

Principle: Private nuisance is the interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises and it is actionable by the person whose rights have been disturbed.

Facts: Ashish and Salma were next door neighbours who lived in the same building. Ashish was a chain-smoker and smoked a number of cigarettes everyday within the confines of his house which entered Salma’s house too. Salma feared that the passive smoking she was being subjected to would cause her health complications and bough herself air-fresheners and purification devices as a result of which electricity bill shot up. She complained about Ashish to the building secretary who agreed with her. Finally, Salma filed a case against Ashish asking for compensation on the grounds of nuisance. Will Salma succeed?

a)
Salma will not succeed because there is no law against smoking in India.
b)
Salma will succeed because even after her complaints to the building secretary, Ashish continued to smoke.
c)
Salma will succeed as Ashish’s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted private nuisance.
d)
Salma will not succeed as she is being paranoid and as long as Ashish smokes inside the four walls of his house, he cannot be alleged of causing nuisance.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Directon:In this section every question is appended with facts and pri...

Salma will succeed as Ashish’s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted private nuisance.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple choice answers. You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: Private nuisance is the interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises and it is actionable by the person whose rights have been disturbed.Facts: Ashish and Salma were next door neighbours who lived in the same building. Ashish was a chainsmoker and smoked a number of cigarettes everyday within the confines of his house which entered Salma’s house too. Salma feared that the passive smoking she was being subjected to would cause her health complications and bough herself air-fresheners and purification devices as a result of which electricity bill shot up. She complained about Ashish to the building secretary who agreed with her. Finally, Salma filed a case against Ashish asking for compensation on the grounds of nuisance. Will Salma succeed?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.It is no secret that a number of POCSO cases end in acquittals. While a more uninformed opinion is that the cases themselves might not have been genuine, the grim reality is that there is a gross failure to support and rehabilitate the victim and her family. As a result of this, either the victims turn hostile or the family turns hostile, or they simply lose hope and stop cooperating.Section 33(8) of POCSO provides that in appropriate cases, in addition to punishment, the Special Court may direct payment of compensation to the child for any physical/mental trauma caused to the child or for immediate rehabilitation. Pursuant to the parent Act, the POCSO Rules of 2012 dedicated Rule 7 to the procedure and parameters of providing such compensation. Rule 7(3) enlisted the various parameters/factors to be considered by the Special Court in deciding such compensation, such as gravity of the offence, expenditure incurred/likely to be incurred on medical treatment, loss of educational opportunity, financial conditions, etc. Rule 7(4) and state that after the amount is decided/ granted by the Special Court, it is to be disbursed from the Victim; Compensation Fund or such other scheme by the legal services authority within 30 days of receipt of such order.It is seen that the grant of compensation by Special Courts under POCSO is both sporadic and erratic. There is also confusion as to who is to apply for compensation on behalf of the victim, with many victims under the impression that the investigating officer would apply for compensation on their behalf. To top it off, even in cases where the compensation was granted by the Special Court, the amounts were rather inconsistent and arbitrary, some being as meagre as Rs. 10,000 .These issues were raised and argued at length in a PIL filed in the Delhi High Court back in 2016. While the matter was still being heard in the High Court in the captioned PIL, the Supreme Court passed a significant direction on the aspect of compensation under POCSO in Nipun Saxena & Anr v. Union of India \& Ors. It was directed that the Special Court, upon receipt of information as to the commission of any offence under the Act by the registration of FIR, shall on his own or on the application of the victim make an enquiry as to the immediate needs of the child for relief or rehabilitation and pass appropriate order for interim compensation. It was further held that if the court declines to grant interim or final compensation it shall record its reasons for not doing so. Nipun Saxena's case was preceded by another pertinent judgment passed under POCSO by the Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. UOI, wherein the Apex Court directed for each High Court to constitute a three-judge committee to regulate and monitor the progress of trials under POCSO. In addition, each state was directed to constitute a Special Task Force to ensure that investigation is properly conducted under POCSO.It was the Unnao Rape case and the Supreme Court's suo moto cognizance of it that truly brought many of these issues to the fore. The Supreme Court noted that timelines of the Act are not being followed at all. Besides granting interim compensation of Rs. 25 lakh to the victim, the Supreme Court directed that in each district in the country (if there are more than 100 POCSO cases) an exclusive Special Court will be set up, which will try no offence except those under POCSO Act. Though the Court had granted 60 days for the same, the process of setting up and functioning of these courts all over the country is still underway.The advent of the new POCSO Rules, 2020 and the directions of the Supreme Court in 2018-2019 have given a sliver of hope to POCSO victims. As is with all laws, the implementation on the ground is a whole new ball game from the promulgation of the law itself. It remains to be seen whether these new developments provide the care and rehabilitation that POCSO victims need and deserve.Q. Piyali is the daughter of Rajat. One day when Rajat was out his neighbour entered the house and finding Piyali alone tried to molest her. Knowing this Rajat filed a case in the court. Under which act the neighbour will be liable?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.It is no secret that a number of POCSO cases end in acquittals. While a more uninformed opinion is that the cases themselves might not have been genuine, the grim reality is that there is a gross failure to support and rehabilitate the victim and her family. As a result of this, either the victims turn hostile or the family turns hostile, or they simply lose hope and stop cooperating.Section 33(8) of POCSO provides that in appropriate cases, in addition to punishment, the Special Court may direct payment of compensation to the child for any physical/mental trauma caused to the child or for immediate rehabilitation. Pursuant to the parent Act, the POCSO Rules of 2012 dedicated Rule 7 to the procedure and parameters of providing such compensation. Rule 7(3) enlisted the various parameters/factors to be considered by the Special Court in deciding such compensation, such as gravity of the offence, expenditure incurred/likely to be incurred on medical treatment, loss of educational opportunity, financial conditions, etc. Rule 7(4) and state that after the amount is decided/ granted by the Special Court, it is to be disbursed from the Victim; Compensation Fund or such other scheme by the legal services authority within 30 days of receipt of such order.It is seen that the grant of compensation by Special Courts under POCSO is both sporadic and erratic. There is also confusion as to who is to apply for compensation on behalf of the victim, with many victims under the impression that the investigating officer would apply for compensation on their behalf. To top it off, even in cases where the compensation was granted by the Special Court, the amounts were rather inconsistent and arbitrary, some being as meagre as Rs. 10,000 .These issues were raised and argued at length in a PIL filed in the Delhi High Court back in 2016. While the matter was still being heard in the High Court in the captioned PIL, the Supreme Court passed a significant direction on the aspect of compensation under POCSO in Nipun Saxena & Anr v. Union of India \& Ors. It was directed that the Special Court, upon receipt of information as to the commission of any offence under the Act by the registration of FIR, shall on his own or on the application of the victim make an enquiry as to the immediate needs of the child for relief or rehabilitation and pass appropriate order for interim compensation. It was further held that if the court declines to grant interim or final compensation it shall record its reasons for not doing so. Nipun Saxena's case was preceded by another pertinent judgment passed under POCSO by the Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. UOI, wherein the Apex Court directed for each High Court to constitute a three-judge committee to regulate and monitor the progress of trials under POCSO. In addition, each state was directed to constitute a Special Task Force to ensure that investigation is properly conducted under POCSO.It was the Unnao Rape case and the Supreme Court's suo moto cognizance of it that truly brought many of these issues to the fore. The Supreme Court noted that timelines of the Act are not being followed at all. Besides granting interim compensation of Rs. 25 lakh to the victim, the Supreme Court directed that in each district in the country (if there are more than 100 POCSO cases) an exclusive Special Court will be set up, which will try no offence except those under POCSO Act. Though the Court had granted 60 days for the same, the process of setting up and functioning of these courts all over the country is still underway.The advent of the new POCSO Rules, 2020 and the directions of the Supreme Court in 2018-2019 have given a sliver of hope to POCSO victims. As is with all laws, the implementation on the ground is a whole new ball game from the promulgation of the law itself. It remains to be seen whether these new developments provide the care and rehabilitation that POCSO victims need and deserve.Q. Anita is a child of 8 years. One day while she was playing on the roads a Brahmin Pandit kidnapped her and took her to an abandoned temple and raped her. When she was found out after 2 days she was senseless due to excessive bleeding and was grievously hurt. Who can claim compensation for Anita?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.It is no secret that a number of POCSO cases end in acquittals. While a more uninformed opinion is that the cases themselves might not have been genuine, the grim reality is that there is a gross failure to support and rehabilitate the victim and her family. As a result of this, either the victims turn hostile or the family turns hostile, or they simply lose hope and stop cooperating.Section 33(8) of POCSO provides that in appropriate cases, in addition to punishment, the Special Court may direct payment of compensation to the child for any physical/mental trauma caused to the child or for immediate rehabilitation. Pursuant to the parent Act, the POCSO Rules of 2012 dedicated Rule 7 to the procedure and parameters of providing such compensation. Rule 7(3) enlisted the various parameters/factors to be considered by the Special Court in deciding such compensation, such as gravity of the offence, expenditure incurred/likely to be incurred on medical treatment, loss of educational opportunity, financial conditions, etc. Rule 7(4) and state that after the amount is decided/ granted by the Special Court, it is to be disbursed from the Victim; Compensation Fund or such other scheme by the legal services authority within 30 days of receipt of such order.It is seen that the grant of compensation by Special Courts under POCSO is both sporadic and erratic. There is also confusion as to who is to apply for compensation on behalf of the victim, with many victims under the impression that the investigating officer would apply for compensation on their behalf. To top it off, even in cases where the compensation was granted by the Special Court, the amounts were rather inconsistent and arbitrary, some being as meagre as Rs. 10,000 .These issues were raised and argued at length in a PIL filed in the Delhi High Court back in 2016. While the matter was still being heard in the High Court in the captioned PIL, the Supreme Court passed a significant direction on the aspect of compensation under POCSO in Nipun Saxena & Anr v. Union of India \& Ors. It was directed that the Special Court, upon receipt of information as to the commission of any offence under the Act by the registration of FIR, shall on his own or on the application of the victim make an enquiry as to the immediate needs of the child for relief or rehabilitation and pass appropriate order for interim compensation. It was further held that if the court declines to grant interim or final compensation it shall record its reasons for not doing so. Nipun Saxena's case was preceded by another pertinent judgment passed under POCSO by the Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. UOI, wherein the Apex Court directed for each High Court to constitute a three-judge committee to regulate and monitor the progress of trials under POCSO. In addition, each state was directed to constitute a Special Task Force to ensure that investigation is properly conducted under POCSO.It was the Unnao Rape case and the Supreme Court's suo moto cognizance of it that truly brought many of these issues to the fore. The Supreme Court noted that timelines of the Act are not being followed at all. Besides granting interim compensation of Rs. 25 lakh to the victim, the Supreme Court directed that in each district in the country (if there are more than 100 POCSO cases) an exclusive Special Court will be set up, which will try no offence except those under POCSO Act. Though the Court had granted 60 days for the same, the process of setting up and functioning of these courts all over the country is still underway.The advent of the new POCSO Rules, 2020 and the directions of the Supreme Court in 2018-2019 have given a sliver of hope to POCSO victims. As is with all laws, the implementation on the ground is a whole new ball game from the promulgation of the law itself. It remains to be seen whether these new developments provide the care and rehabilitation that POCSO victims need and deserve.Q. Fast track special courts are courts designated for?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.It is no secret that a number of POCSO cases end in acquittals. While a more uninformed opinion is that the cases themselves might not have been genuine, the grim reality is that there is a gross failure to support and rehabilitate the victim and her family. As a result of this, either the victims turn hostile or the family turns hostile, or they simply lose hope and stop cooperating.Section 33(8) of POCSO provides that in appropriate cases, in addition to punishment, the Special Court may direct payment of compensation to the child for any physical/mental trauma caused to the child or for immediate rehabilitation. Pursuant to the parent Act, the POCSO Rules of 2012 dedicated Rule 7 to the procedure and parameters of providing such compensation. Rule 7(3) enlisted the various parameters/factors to be considered by the Special Court in deciding such compensation, such as gravity of the offence, expenditure incurred/likely to be incurred on medical treatment, loss of educational opportunity, financial conditions, etc. Rule 7(4) and state that after the amount is decided/ granted by the Special Court, it is to be disbursed from the Victim; Compensation Fund or such other scheme by the legal services authority within 30 days of receipt of such order.It is seen that the grant of compensation by Special Courts under POCSO is both sporadic and erratic. There is also confusion as to who is to apply for compensation on behalf of the victim, with many victims under the impression that the investigating officer would apply for compensation on their behalf. To top it off, even in cases where the compensation was granted by the Special Court, the amounts were rather inconsistent and arbitrary, some being as meagre as Rs. 10,000 .These issues were raised and argued at length in a PIL filed in the Delhi High Court back in 2016. While the matter was still being heard in the High Court in the captioned PIL, the Supreme Court passed a significant direction on the aspect of compensation under POCSO in Nipun Saxena & Anr v. Union of India \& Ors. It was directed that the Special Court, upon receipt of information as to the commission of any offence under the Act by the registration of FIR, shall on his own or on the application of the victim make an enquiry as to the immediate needs of the child for relief or rehabilitation and pass appropriate order for interim compensation. It was further held that if the court declines to grant interim or final compensation it shall record its reasons for not doing so. Nipun Saxena's case was preceded by another pertinent judgment passed under POCSO by the Supreme Court in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. UOI, wherein the Apex Court directed for each High Court to constitute a three-judge committee to regulate and monitor the progress of trials under POCSO. In addition, each state was directed to constitute a Special Task Force to ensure that investigation is properly conducted under POCSO.It was the Unnao Rape case and the Supreme Court's suo moto cognizance of it that truly brought many of these issues to the fore. The Supreme Court noted that timelines of the Act are not being followed at all. Besides granting interim compensation of Rs. 25 lakh to the victim, the Supreme Court directed that in each district in the country (if there are more than 100 POCSO cases) an exclusive Special Court will be set up, which will try no offence except those under POCSO Act. Though the Court had granted 60 days for the same, the process of setting up and functioning of these courts all over the country is still underway.The advent of the new POCSO Rules, 2020 and the directions of the Supreme Court in 2018-2019 have given a sliver of hope to POCSO victims. As is with all laws, the implementation on the ground is a whole new ball game from the promulgation of the law itself. It remains to be seen whether these new developments provide the care and rehabilitation that POCSO victims need and deserve.Q. POCSO cases will be tried in

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Directon:In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple-choice answers. You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: Private nuisance is the interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises and it is actionable by the person whose rights have been disturbed.Facts: Ashish and Salma were next door neighbours who lived in the same building. Ashish was a chain-smoker and smoked a number of cigarettes everyday within the confines of his house which entered Salma’s house too. Salma feared that the passive smoking she was being subjected to would cause her health complications and bough herself air-fresheners and purification devices as a result of which electricity bill shot up. She complained about Ashish to the building secretary who agreed with her. Finally, Salma filed a case against Ashish asking for compensation on the grounds of nuisance. Will Salma succeed?a)Salma will not succeed because there is no law against smoking in India.b)Salma will succeed because even after her complaints to the building secretary, Ashish continued to smoke.c)Salma will succeed as Ashish’s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted private nuisance.d)Salma will not succeed as she is being paranoid and as long as Ashish smokes inside the four walls of his house, he cannot be alleged of causing nuisance.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directon:In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple-choice answers. You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: Private nuisance is the interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises and it is actionable by the person whose rights have been disturbed.Facts: Ashish and Salma were next door neighbours who lived in the same building. Ashish was a chain-smoker and smoked a number of cigarettes everyday within the confines of his house which entered Salma’s house too. Salma feared that the passive smoking she was being subjected to would cause her health complications and bough herself air-fresheners and purification devices as a result of which electricity bill shot up. She complained about Ashish to the building secretary who agreed with her. Finally, Salma filed a case against Ashish asking for compensation on the grounds of nuisance. Will Salma succeed?a)Salma will not succeed because there is no law against smoking in India.b)Salma will succeed because even after her complaints to the building secretary, Ashish continued to smoke.c)Salma will succeed as Ashish’s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted private nuisance.d)Salma will not succeed as she is being paranoid and as long as Ashish smokes inside the four walls of his house, he cannot be alleged of causing nuisance.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directon:In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple-choice answers. You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: Private nuisance is the interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises and it is actionable by the person whose rights have been disturbed.Facts: Ashish and Salma were next door neighbours who lived in the same building. Ashish was a chain-smoker and smoked a number of cigarettes everyday within the confines of his house which entered Salma’s house too. Salma feared that the passive smoking she was being subjected to would cause her health complications and bough herself air-fresheners and purification devices as a result of which electricity bill shot up. She complained about Ashish to the building secretary who agreed with her. Finally, Salma filed a case against Ashish asking for compensation on the grounds of nuisance. Will Salma succeed?a)Salma will not succeed because there is no law against smoking in India.b)Salma will succeed because even after her complaints to the building secretary, Ashish continued to smoke.c)Salma will succeed as Ashish’s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted private nuisance.d)Salma will not succeed as she is being paranoid and as long as Ashish smokes inside the four walls of his house, he cannot be alleged of causing nuisance.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directon:In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple-choice answers. You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: Private nuisance is the interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises and it is actionable by the person whose rights have been disturbed.Facts: Ashish and Salma were next door neighbours who lived in the same building. Ashish was a chain-smoker and smoked a number of cigarettes everyday within the confines of his house which entered Salma’s house too. Salma feared that the passive smoking she was being subjected to would cause her health complications and bough herself air-fresheners and purification devices as a result of which electricity bill shot up. She complained about Ashish to the building secretary who agreed with her. Finally, Salma filed a case against Ashish asking for compensation on the grounds of nuisance. Will Salma succeed?a)Salma will not succeed because there is no law against smoking in India.b)Salma will succeed because even after her complaints to the building secretary, Ashish continued to smoke.c)Salma will succeed as Ashish’s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted private nuisance.d)Salma will not succeed as she is being paranoid and as long as Ashish smokes inside the four walls of his house, he cannot be alleged of causing nuisance.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directon:In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple-choice answers. You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: Private nuisance is the interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises and it is actionable by the person whose rights have been disturbed.Facts: Ashish and Salma were next door neighbours who lived in the same building. Ashish was a chain-smoker and smoked a number of cigarettes everyday within the confines of his house which entered Salma’s house too. Salma feared that the passive smoking she was being subjected to would cause her health complications and bough herself air-fresheners and purification devices as a result of which electricity bill shot up. She complained about Ashish to the building secretary who agreed with her. Finally, Salma filed a case against Ashish asking for compensation on the grounds of nuisance. Will Salma succeed?a)Salma will not succeed because there is no law against smoking in India.b)Salma will succeed because even after her complaints to the building secretary, Ashish continued to smoke.c)Salma will succeed as Ashish’s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted private nuisance.d)Salma will not succeed as she is being paranoid and as long as Ashish smokes inside the four walls of his house, he cannot be alleged of causing nuisance.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directon:In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple-choice answers. You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: Private nuisance is the interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises and it is actionable by the person whose rights have been disturbed.Facts: Ashish and Salma were next door neighbours who lived in the same building. Ashish was a chain-smoker and smoked a number of cigarettes everyday within the confines of his house which entered Salma’s house too. Salma feared that the passive smoking she was being subjected to would cause her health complications and bough herself air-fresheners and purification devices as a result of which electricity bill shot up. She complained about Ashish to the building secretary who agreed with her. Finally, Salma filed a case against Ashish asking for compensation on the grounds of nuisance. Will Salma succeed?a)Salma will not succeed because there is no law against smoking in India.b)Salma will succeed because even after her complaints to the building secretary, Ashish continued to smoke.c)Salma will succeed as Ashish’s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted private nuisance.d)Salma will not succeed as she is being paranoid and as long as Ashish smokes inside the four walls of his house, he cannot be alleged of causing nuisance.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directon:In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple-choice answers. You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: Private nuisance is the interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises and it is actionable by the person whose rights have been disturbed.Facts: Ashish and Salma were next door neighbours who lived in the same building. Ashish was a chain-smoker and smoked a number of cigarettes everyday within the confines of his house which entered Salma’s house too. Salma feared that the passive smoking she was being subjected to would cause her health complications and bough herself air-fresheners and purification devices as a result of which electricity bill shot up. She complained about Ashish to the building secretary who agreed with her. Finally, Salma filed a case against Ashish asking for compensation on the grounds of nuisance. Will Salma succeed?a)Salma will not succeed because there is no law against smoking in India.b)Salma will succeed because even after her complaints to the building secretary, Ashish continued to smoke.c)Salma will succeed as Ashish’s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted private nuisance.d)Salma will not succeed as she is being paranoid and as long as Ashish smokes inside the four walls of his house, he cannot be alleged of causing nuisance.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directon:In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple-choice answers. You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: Private nuisance is the interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises and it is actionable by the person whose rights have been disturbed.Facts: Ashish and Salma were next door neighbours who lived in the same building. Ashish was a chain-smoker and smoked a number of cigarettes everyday within the confines of his house which entered Salma’s house too. Salma feared that the passive smoking she was being subjected to would cause her health complications and bough herself air-fresheners and purification devices as a result of which electricity bill shot up. She complained about Ashish to the building secretary who agreed with her. Finally, Salma filed a case against Ashish asking for compensation on the grounds of nuisance. Will Salma succeed?a)Salma will not succeed because there is no law against smoking in India.b)Salma will succeed because even after her complaints to the building secretary, Ashish continued to smoke.c)Salma will succeed as Ashish’s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted private nuisance.d)Salma will not succeed as she is being paranoid and as long as Ashish smokes inside the four walls of his house, he cannot be alleged of causing nuisance.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directon:In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple-choice answers. You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: Private nuisance is the interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises and it is actionable by the person whose rights have been disturbed.Facts: Ashish and Salma were next door neighbours who lived in the same building. Ashish was a chain-smoker and smoked a number of cigarettes everyday within the confines of his house which entered Salma’s house too. Salma feared that the passive smoking she was being subjected to would cause her health complications and bough herself air-fresheners and purification devices as a result of which electricity bill shot up. She complained about Ashish to the building secretary who agreed with her. Finally, Salma filed a case against Ashish asking for compensation on the grounds of nuisance. Will Salma succeed?a)Salma will not succeed because there is no law against smoking in India.b)Salma will succeed because even after her complaints to the building secretary, Ashish continued to smoke.c)Salma will succeed as Ashish’s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted private nuisance.d)Salma will not succeed as she is being paranoid and as long as Ashish smokes inside the four walls of his house, he cannot be alleged of causing nuisance.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directon:In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple-choice answers. You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: Private nuisance is the interference with the use and enjoyment of the premises and it is actionable by the person whose rights have been disturbed.Facts: Ashish and Salma were next door neighbours who lived in the same building. Ashish was a chain-smoker and smoked a number of cigarettes everyday within the confines of his house which entered Salma’s house too. Salma feared that the passive smoking she was being subjected to would cause her health complications and bough herself air-fresheners and purification devices as a result of which electricity bill shot up. She complained about Ashish to the building secretary who agreed with her. Finally, Salma filed a case against Ashish asking for compensation on the grounds of nuisance. Will Salma succeed?a)Salma will not succeed because there is no law against smoking in India.b)Salma will succeed because even after her complaints to the building secretary, Ashish continued to smoke.c)Salma will succeed as Ashish’s habit of continuous smoking created a lot of smoke and it interfered in the enjoyment of her property and constituted private nuisance.d)Salma will not succeed as she is being paranoid and as long as Ashish smokes inside the four walls of his house, he cannot be alleged of causing nuisance.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam