Question Description
Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on each passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majestys subjects".Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesnt include visitors or those who arent considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns escapes onto land, and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a persons enjoyment of property. Property right in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance. Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which goes by the name of One Canada Square. Residents in the area experienced interference with the television signals due to the construction of One Canada Square. Some of the claimants werehomeowners whilst others were family members, lodgers and others without a proprietary interest in the property affected. Decide, whether interference with ones television reception amounted to actionable nuisance?a)No, Interference of television signals does not constitute an actionable nuisance.b)Yes, Television signals are a property thus any interference with the same constitute nuisance.c)No, Building a tower upon a land is a legal right thus obstruction is a natural concomitant.d)Residents ought to shift to other television operator providing seamless services.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on each passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majestys subjects".Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesnt include visitors or those who arent considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns escapes onto land, and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a persons enjoyment of property. Property right in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance. Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which goes by the name of One Canada Square. Residents in the area experienced interference with the television signals due to the construction of One Canada Square. Some of the claimants werehomeowners whilst others were family members, lodgers and others without a proprietary interest in the property affected. Decide, whether interference with ones television reception amounted to actionable nuisance?a)No, Interference of television signals does not constitute an actionable nuisance.b)Yes, Television signals are a property thus any interference with the same constitute nuisance.c)No, Building a tower upon a land is a legal right thus obstruction is a natural concomitant.d)Residents ought to shift to other television operator providing seamless services.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on each passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majestys subjects".Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesnt include visitors or those who arent considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns escapes onto land, and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a persons enjoyment of property. Property right in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance. Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which goes by the name of One Canada Square. Residents in the area experienced interference with the television signals due to the construction of One Canada Square. Some of the claimants werehomeowners whilst others were family members, lodgers and others without a proprietary interest in the property affected. Decide, whether interference with ones television reception amounted to actionable nuisance?a)No, Interference of television signals does not constitute an actionable nuisance.b)Yes, Television signals are a property thus any interference with the same constitute nuisance.c)No, Building a tower upon a land is a legal right thus obstruction is a natural concomitant.d)Residents ought to shift to other television operator providing seamless services.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on each passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majestys subjects".Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesnt include visitors or those who arent considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns escapes onto land, and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a persons enjoyment of property. Property right in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance. Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which goes by the name of One Canada Square. Residents in the area experienced interference with the television signals due to the construction of One Canada Square. Some of the claimants werehomeowners whilst others were family members, lodgers and others without a proprietary interest in the property affected. Decide, whether interference with ones television reception amounted to actionable nuisance?a)No, Interference of television signals does not constitute an actionable nuisance.b)Yes, Television signals are a property thus any interference with the same constitute nuisance.c)No, Building a tower upon a land is a legal right thus obstruction is a natural concomitant.d)Residents ought to shift to other television operator providing seamless services.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on each passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majestys subjects".Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesnt include visitors or those who arent considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns escapes onto land, and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a persons enjoyment of property. Property right in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance. Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which goes by the name of One Canada Square. Residents in the area experienced interference with the television signals due to the construction of One Canada Square. Some of the claimants werehomeowners whilst others were family members, lodgers and others without a proprietary interest in the property affected. Decide, whether interference with ones television reception amounted to actionable nuisance?a)No, Interference of television signals does not constitute an actionable nuisance.b)Yes, Television signals are a property thus any interference with the same constitute nuisance.c)No, Building a tower upon a land is a legal right thus obstruction is a natural concomitant.d)Residents ought to shift to other television operator providing seamless services.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on each passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majestys subjects".Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesnt include visitors or those who arent considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns escapes onto land, and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a persons enjoyment of property. Property right in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance. Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which goes by the name of One Canada Square. Residents in the area experienced interference with the television signals due to the construction of One Canada Square. Some of the claimants werehomeowners whilst others were family members, lodgers and others without a proprietary interest in the property affected. Decide, whether interference with ones television reception amounted to actionable nuisance?a)No, Interference of television signals does not constitute an actionable nuisance.b)Yes, Television signals are a property thus any interference with the same constitute nuisance.c)No, Building a tower upon a land is a legal right thus obstruction is a natural concomitant.d)Residents ought to shift to other television operator providing seamless services.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on each passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majestys subjects".Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesnt include visitors or those who arent considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns escapes onto land, and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a persons enjoyment of property. Property right in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance. Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which goes by the name of One Canada Square. Residents in the area experienced interference with the television signals due to the construction of One Canada Square. Some of the claimants werehomeowners whilst others were family members, lodgers and others without a proprietary interest in the property affected. Decide, whether interference with ones television reception amounted to actionable nuisance?a)No, Interference of television signals does not constitute an actionable nuisance.b)Yes, Television signals are a property thus any interference with the same constitute nuisance.c)No, Building a tower upon a land is a legal right thus obstruction is a natural concomitant.d)Residents ought to shift to other television operator providing seamless services.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on each passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majestys subjects".Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesnt include visitors or those who arent considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns escapes onto land, and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a persons enjoyment of property. Property right in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance. Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which goes by the name of One Canada Square. Residents in the area experienced interference with the television signals due to the construction of One Canada Square. Some of the claimants werehomeowners whilst others were family members, lodgers and others without a proprietary interest in the property affected. Decide, whether interference with ones television reception amounted to actionable nuisance?a)No, Interference of television signals does not constitute an actionable nuisance.b)Yes, Television signals are a property thus any interference with the same constitute nuisance.c)No, Building a tower upon a land is a legal right thus obstruction is a natural concomitant.d)Residents ought to shift to other television operator providing seamless services.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on each passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.Nuisance (from archaic nocence, through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, "to hurt") is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as, "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majestys subjects".Private nuisance is the interference with the right of specific people. Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (land owners, lease holders etc.) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. However this doesnt include visitors or those who arent considered to have an interest in the land. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance.The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear, due to the public/private nuisance divide, and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though related, tort. This is still an issue for debate, and is rejected by others (the primary distinction in Rylands concerns escapes onto land, and so it may be argued that the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.) In summation, Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a persons enjoyment of property. Property right in the land is necessary for an action in Private nuisance. Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties. Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which goes by the name of One Canada Square. Residents in the area experienced interference with the television signals due to the construction of One Canada Square. Some of the claimants werehomeowners whilst others were family members, lodgers and others without a proprietary interest in the property affected. Decide, whether interference with ones television reception amounted to actionable nuisance?a)No, Interference of television signals does not constitute an actionable nuisance.b)Yes, Television signals are a property thus any interference with the same constitute nuisance.c)No, Building a tower upon a land is a legal right thus obstruction is a natural concomitant.d)Residents ought to shift to other television operator providing seamless services.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.