Skip to content


Hulas Rai Vs. P. Sohan Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All443; 71Ind.Cas.620
AppellantHulas Rai
RespondentP. Sohan Lal
Excerpt:
specific relief act (i of 1877), section 54, ill. (s) - business requiring use of hummer--noise--comfort of next door neighbour interfered with--injunction. - - the case, as is pointed out by the respondent's learned pleader, is almost precisely the case which is mentioned in illustration (s) to section 54 of the specific relief act, my attention has be n called to an english case in which it w s held that a person living in a manufacturing town cannot expect the same freedom from noise as a person living in the contrary. this is a perfectly correct principle, bit it does not justify a business which inv......an injunction to restrain the defendant from carrying on business of repairing and manufacturing iron pans in a room adjoining the plaintiffs' residential house. the suit his been decreed by the court below. the facts found are that the plaintiff and defendant are next-door neighbours with only a partition between their two houses. the defendant has commenced business for making iron pans for the manufacture of sugar in his house. in the coarse of his business the pans have to be hammered, and hammers weighing two seers and more are used in the process. the learned district judge has found, and on the facts the finding is incontestably right, that this hammering causes noise which materially interferes with the comfort of the plaintiff in the occupation of his house, and which is.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant from carrying on business of repairing and manufacturing iron pans in a room adjoining the plaintiffs' residential house. The suit his been decreed by the Court below. The facts found are that the plaintiff and defendant are next-door neighbours with only a partition between their two houses. The defendant has commenced business for making iron pans for the manufacture of sugar in his house. In the coarse of his business the pans have to be hammered, and hammers weighing two seers and more are used in the process. The learned District Judge has found, and on the facts the finding is incontestably right, that this hammering causes noise which materially interferes with the comfort of the plaintiff in the occupation of his house, and which is sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to an injunction. It is pleaded on behalf of the appellant that the hammering only takes place in certain months 01 the year, but this does not affect the plaintiff's right to an injunction. The case, as is pointed out by the respondent's learned Pleader, is almost precisely the case which is mentioned in illustration (s) to Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act, My attention has be n called to an English case in which it w s held that a person living in a manufacturing town cannot expect the same freedom from noise as a person living in the contrary. This is a perfectly correct principle, bit it does not justify a business which inv. Ives a violent hammering on iron in a room separated only by a partition wall from the house of the plaintiff. The judgment of the Court below is correct and I dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //