Sadasiva Aiyar, J.
1. The defendant is the appellant he purchased a schoolmaster's house about a year before suit, the plaintiff's house being next door to the house so purchased by the defendant. The defendant is an oil monger by caste and he set up an oil mill of the country pattern in the yard of his house. The noise of the mill caused by the turning of the machine drawn by the bullock?, the state of the ground trodden by the bullocks and the droppings of the bullocks created much nuisance. The District Munsif found (1) that the machine occupied the entire vacant space in the defendant's compound and that it has been put up very near the occupied portion of the plaintiff's house; (2) that the machine was worked by the defendant both day and night, that the noise caused by the working of the machine was unbearable and prevented the defendant from attending to his photographic work; (3) that the noise proceeding from the mill machine could be beard at a distance of two furlongs; and (4) that black, dirty, foul-smelling water containing mosquitoes and worms was found in the defendant's compound on account of the washing of the nuts and of the cowdung stored in it, especially during the rainy season. In Pollock on Torts at page 429, it is stated: A nuisance is not justified, by showing that the trade or occupation causing the annoyance is, apart from the annoyance an innocent or laudable one. 'The building of a lime-kiln is good and profitable; but if it be built so near a house that when it burns, the smoke thereof enters into the blouse so that none can dwell there, an action lies for it.' 'A tan house is necessary, for all men wear shoes; and nevertheless it may be pulled down if it be erected, to the nuisance of another. In like manner of a glass house; and they ought to be erected in places convenient for them,' 'So of a fried fish shop. So it is an actionable nuisance to keep a pig-stye so near any neighbour's house as to make it unwholesome and unfit for habitation, though the keeping of swine may he needful for the sustenance of man.' Then at page 426 the learned author says: 'What amount of annoyance or inconvenience will amount to a nuisance in point of Jaw, cannot, by the nature of the question, be defined in precise terms. There should be a material interference with the ordinary comfort and convenience of life...the physical comfort of human existence...by an ordinary and reasonable standard.' The locality, the question whether the nuisance had been long in existence, whether the trade which causes it to commonly carried on in that locality and other questions of a like nature have, no doubt, to be considered in deciding whether a particular business carried on by a neighbour is an actionable nuisance., All these things have been kept in mind on, by the learned District Munsif in arriving at his conclusion that the business of the defendant is an actionable nuisance for the abatement of which the plaintiff could sue. The District Munsif says: 'it is not shown that the plaintiff is living in the midst of oil mills.' The portion of the suburb where other oil mills are situated seems to be far removed from the locality where the plaintiff lives. The lower Appellate Court has substantially concurred in the findings of the District Munsif on the points already referred to. The lower Courts have also found that the nuisance cannot be abated otherwise than by prohibiting the working of the oil mill. I would, therefore, dismiss the second appeal with costs.
2. Wallis, C.J.--I do not think that there are sufficient grounds for interfering with the findings of the lower Courts that what has been done in the circumstances of the case amounts to a nuisance. I would dismiss the appeal with costs.