Principle: Under law, persons in possession of property are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their property.
Factual Situation: Ram and his wife occupied a flat in New Delhi to reside peacefully during his retired life. His neighbour who was staying on rent was a young couple having a two months old baby. The cries of the baby disturbed Ram during his afternoon nap and at night. Irritated by the baby's cries, Ram asked the young couple to shift their residence, to which they turned a deaf ear. Ram wants to file a suit against the young couple for nuisance.
A. Ram will not succeed, as the sound of a crying baby is an expected part of quiet enjoyment of property and does not constitute a nuisance
B. Ram will succeed, as the sound of a crying baby is annoying
C. Ram will succeed, as the refusal by the young couple to shift the residence is a violation of Ram's right of quiet enjoyment of his property
D. Ram will not succeed, as he ought to have checked who is staying in the neighbourhood before purchasing a flat
Answer: Option A
The 'tort of intimidation' was propounded in
A. Winterbottom v. Wright
B. Pasley v. Freeman
C. Winsmore v. Greenbank
D. Rookes v. Barnard
The maxim 'scienti non fit injuria' means
A. Where there is no fault, there is no remedy
B. Mere knowledge does not imply consent to take risk
C. Mere giving consent does not imply to take risk
D. Scientific knowledge is not enough to cause injury
A. Scott v. London & St. Katharine Docks Co.
B. Hedley Byrne Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners
C. Derry v. Peek
D. Cann v. Willson
A. Section 82 of the Evidence Act
B. Section 102 of the Evidence Act
C. Section 122 of the Evidence Act
D. Section 124 of the Evidence Act
Join The Discussion