LAWS(PVC)-1929-3-191

ABDULLA Vs. AMBADAS

Decided On March 28, 1929
ABDULLA Appellant
V/S
AMBADAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The following rough sketch showing the situation of the houses of the parties in the town of Akola will facilitate the comprehension of the present controversy: Vide for the sketch --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Public Road --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Plaintiff's Umarkhan's Road Bismilla's Lane Defendant 1's Defendant

(2.) 's house house house house --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 19' 22' 42' 8'.6" 46' 33' 2. The plaintiffs instituted the suit, out of which this second appeal arose, claiming injunction against the defendants to restrain them from discharging filthy and waste water from their houses and latrines into a kachcha drain, which passed in front of the houses of the parties alongside the public road. It was alleged that this foul water stagnated in front of the plaintiffs' house and caused nuisance to the plaintiffs.

(3.) IN dismissing the plaintiffs' suit the trial Court recorded the following findings: (a) that the water from the defendants' houses that flowed in the nali was not the foul water from the latrine but other kind of waste water which was, however, not unconfcaminated: (b) that this water did stagnate in front of the plaintiffs' house and caused nuisance; (c) that the plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence because they did not build the nali in front of their house pucca and that neither they nor the Municipal Committee cared to have this portion of the nali cleaned so as to allow the stagnant water to flow down; (d) that the defendants have not exceeded the reasonable user of their own property and caused any nuisance to the plaintiffs directly; (e) that the defendants had a right to discharge this dirty water in the public drain because they were permitted to do so by the Municipal Committee which allowed them to construct pucca nali in front of their houses; and (f) that the defendants did not, for the above reasons, commit any actionable wrong.