ATMA SINGH Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The apellant-plaintiff filed a suit for the issuance for a permanent injunction against the respondent-defendants from working their foundry in the building of Smt. Kartar Kaur, Jagat Singh and others adjoining his shop-cum-house. The learned trial Court after consideration of the entire evidence and the inspection of the spot decreed the claim of the appellant-plaintiff. The respondent-defendants went up in appeal which was partly allowed by the learned lower appellate Court.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant has come up in second appeal before me.

(3.) The learned lower appellate Court did notice this report and yet allowed the foundry to be worked for two days a month during day-time. The principle that no one should be allowed to use his own property in such a manner that it creates a nuisance for his neighbours has been settled long since when Rylands v. Fletcher,1868 3 HLR 330, was decided. From the report of the Local Commissioner, it is evident that the blower emitted sound which disturbed the sleep of the neighbours, and the furnace emitted heat which could be felt on the roof of the house of the paintiff-appellant. In this situation, the leavrened Lower appellate Court should not have disturbed the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court.