AILET 2018 BA LLB Question Paper with answer key for online practice
Show Para
Directions (Q. 72 - Q. 73):
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer. Legal Principles :
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interferencewith the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. 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.
3. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
4. The foresee ability ofthe type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer. Legal Principles :
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interferencewith the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. 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.
3. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
4. The foresee ability ofthe type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance
© examsiri.com
Question : 73 of 150
Marks:
+1,
-0
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 erectionof 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 oftheir 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 ?
Go to Question: