Radhey Shiam v. Gur Prasad Serma AIR 1978 All 86

Quick Summary

Neighbours challenged the running of an oil expeller and a proposed flour mill inside a residential building. They said the machines caused loud rattling and vibrations, harming peace and health. The High Court applied the Dhanna Lal rule: even in a noisy area, a substantial new increase that affects ordinary comfort is an actionable nuisance. The injunction against noise and vibration was upheld; the Second Appeals were dismissed.

Issues

• Does operating an oil expeller/flour mill in a residence create private nuisance by noise and vibration?
• Can courts restrain such activity through a permanent injunction?

Rules

• Dhanna Lal rule: Even in a noisy locality, a substantial addition that materially affects neighbours’ physical comfort amounts to actionable nuisance.
• Injunction relief: Courts may restrain running/setting up machines that cause noise/vibration nuisance.

Facts (Timeline)

1. Complaints: Plaintiffs (incl. Gur Prasad Saxena) live/operate near defendant’s shop in a residential building; oil expeller already running.
2. Intended addition: Defendant plans to install a flour mill; owners and neighbours oppose due to noise and health concerns.
3. First suit (1964): Plaintiffs seek permanent injunction; trial court dismisses, says no nuisance.
4. Second suit: Plaintiffs challenge continued running of the oil expeller; again dismissed by trial court.
5. Appeals clubbed: Civil Judge grants injunction against noise/vibrations from installed machines.
6. Second Appeals: Radhey Shyam challenges injunction before the Allahabad High Court.

Arguments

Judgment

Held: The Allahabad High Court upheld the appellate injunction. It accepted findings that the machines’ noise and vibrations would materially affect the physical comfort of the plaintiffs and their families. The Second Appeals were dismissed.

• Injunction valid against making/causing noise and vibrations from the machines.
• Substantial addition to existing locality noise remains actionable.

Ratio

If machine noise/vibration in a residence substantially adds to disturbance and impairs ordinary comfort, it is an actionable private nuisance, even in a generally noisy locality. Courts may grant injunctions.

Why It Matters

• Protects neighbour comfort and health in mixed-use areas.
• Clarifies that “already noisy” is not a free pass to add industrial noise.
• Shows courts’ readiness to use injunctions for day-to-day nuisance.

Key Takeaways

1. Test: Substantial added noise/vibration affecting ordinary comfort = nuisance.
2. Venue: Residential premises are not for heavy, noisy machines.
3. Remedy: Injunction can restrain installation/operation causing nuisance.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: N-O-I-S-E — New substantial sound • Ordinary comfort hit • Injunction fits • Set in residence • Evidence of vibration.

1. Spot: Is there a significant rise in noise/vibration?
2. Probe: Does it disturb sleep/health or daily use?
3. Pin: Seek injunction; show substantial addition per Dhanna Lal.

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Private Nuisance

A substantial interference with a person’s use/enjoyment of land.

Substantial Addition

A noticeable increase over existing noise that affects ordinary comfort.

Injunction

A court order stopping conduct that causes legal harm.

FAQs

Related Cases