Question Description
Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principles: Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance. Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligence and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?a)The interference with the television signal caused by the construction of the tower could not amount to a private nuisance at law. Effective town planning can sort this matter, instead.b)Yes, the large tower had interrupted their television reception, and caused private nuisance — for loss of enjoyment — and remuneration for their wasted television license fee, from the time their signal had been impaired.c)No, it cannot constitute private nuisance, but the claimants can claim damages for loss of television signals.d)Yes, the respondent's conduct was unreasonable because the act of building the tower caused impairment of enjoyment of the land.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: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principles: Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance. Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligence and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?a)The interference with the television signal caused by the construction of the tower could not amount to a private nuisance at law. Effective town planning can sort this matter, instead.b)Yes, the large tower had interrupted their television reception, and caused private nuisance — for loss of enjoyment — and remuneration for their wasted television license fee, from the time their signal had been impaired.c)No, it cannot constitute private nuisance, but the claimants can claim damages for loss of television signals.d)Yes, the respondent's conduct was unreasonable because the act of building the tower caused impairment of enjoyment of the land.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: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principles: Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance. Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligence and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?a)The interference with the television signal caused by the construction of the tower could not amount to a private nuisance at law. Effective town planning can sort this matter, instead.b)Yes, the large tower had interrupted their television reception, and caused private nuisance — for loss of enjoyment — and remuneration for their wasted television license fee, from the time their signal had been impaired.c)No, it cannot constitute private nuisance, but the claimants can claim damages for loss of television signals.d)Yes, the respondent's conduct was unreasonable because the act of building the tower caused impairment of enjoyment of the land.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principles: Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance. Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligence and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?a)The interference with the television signal caused by the construction of the tower could not amount to a private nuisance at law. Effective town planning can sort this matter, instead.b)Yes, the large tower had interrupted their television reception, and caused private nuisance — for loss of enjoyment — and remuneration for their wasted television license fee, from the time their signal had been impaired.c)No, it cannot constitute private nuisance, but the claimants can claim damages for loss of television signals.d)Yes, the respondent's conduct was unreasonable because the act of building the tower caused impairment of enjoyment of the land.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: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principles: Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance. Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligence and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?a)The interference with the television signal caused by the construction of the tower could not amount to a private nuisance at law. Effective town planning can sort this matter, instead.b)Yes, the large tower had interrupted their television reception, and caused private nuisance — for loss of enjoyment — and remuneration for their wasted television license fee, from the time their signal had been impaired.c)No, it cannot constitute private nuisance, but the claimants can claim damages for loss of television signals.d)Yes, the respondent's conduct was unreasonable because the act of building the tower caused impairment of enjoyment of the land.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principles: Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance. Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligence and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?a)The interference with the television signal caused by the construction of the tower could not amount to a private nuisance at law. Effective town planning can sort this matter, instead.b)Yes, the large tower had interrupted their television reception, and caused private nuisance — for loss of enjoyment — and remuneration for their wasted television license fee, from the time their signal had been impaired.c)No, it cannot constitute private nuisance, but the claimants can claim damages for loss of television signals.d)Yes, the respondent's conduct was unreasonable because the act of building the tower caused impairment of enjoyment of the land.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principles: Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance. Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligence and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?a)The interference with the television signal caused by the construction of the tower could not amount to a private nuisance at law. Effective town planning can sort this matter, instead.b)Yes, the large tower had interrupted their television reception, and caused private nuisance — for loss of enjoyment — and remuneration for their wasted television license fee, from the time their signal had been impaired.c)No, it cannot constitute private nuisance, but the claimants can claim damages for loss of television signals.d)Yes, the respondent's conduct was unreasonable because the act of building the tower caused impairment of enjoyment of the land.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principles: Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance. Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligence and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?a)The interference with the television signal caused by the construction of the tower could not amount to a private nuisance at law. Effective town planning can sort this matter, instead.b)Yes, the large tower had interrupted their television reception, and caused private nuisance — for loss of enjoyment — and remuneration for their wasted television license fee, from the time their signal had been impaired.c)No, it cannot constitute private nuisance, but the claimants can claim damages for loss of television signals.d)Yes, the respondent's conduct was unreasonable because the act of building the tower caused impairment of enjoyment of the land.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principles: Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance. Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligence and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?a)The interference with the television signal caused by the construction of the tower could not amount to a private nuisance at law. Effective town planning can sort this matter, instead.b)Yes, the large tower had interrupted their television reception, and caused private nuisance — for loss of enjoyment — and remuneration for their wasted television license fee, from the time their signal had been impaired.c)No, it cannot constitute private nuisance, but the claimants can claim damages for loss of television signals.d)Yes, the respondent's conduct was unreasonable because the act of building the tower caused impairment of enjoyment of the land.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.