DHANNALAL Vs. THAKUR CHITTARSINGH MEHTAPSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal from the decree passed by the Additional district Judge, Sagar, on 20-9-1956, affirming the decree of 25-1-1956 by the civil Judge (Class II), Khurai, granting a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from running a flour-mill close to the house of the plaintiff-respondent in Manorama Ward of Bina town.

(2.) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT has his house at a distance of 8 or 9 feet from the flour-mill. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the working of the flour-mill caused great trouble to the occupants of the house and the smoke, vibrations and the noise of the mill interfered with their physical comforts. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the working of the defendants flour-mill in that locality makes such a great noise generally from 2 P. M. to 9 P. M. and some-days from 8 A. M. to 10 P. M. (with a short break) that during that time it is difficult for the occupants of the plaintiff's house to hear their own conversation, and undoubtedly it interferes with their physical comforts. The Courts, therefore, granted the injunction solely on the basis of abnormal or unreasonable noise produced by the flour-mill.

(3.) SHRI K. B. Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellants, at first challenged the finding. But I find that the plaintiffs evidence is fully corroborated by a Railway overseer, three members of the Bina Municipal Committee, by the Secretary of the Municipal Committee and two other independent witnesses. I am, therefore, satisfied that there is sufficient and reliable evidence to support this conclusion. Shri Sinha, therefore, tried to convince me that noise, however great, can never amount to actionable nuisance and that it is the locality that must be taken into consideration in such cases. The learned Counsel also contended that the appellants have taken license from the Municipal Committee and the mill is being worked according to rules framed by the Municipal Committee.