Você está na página 1de 9

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The respondent humbly approaches the Hon’ble Court Of Andhra Pradesh under section 91 of
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 which reads as follows;

1. In the case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting or likely to affect, the
public, a suit for a declaration and injunction or for such other relief as maybe
appropriate in the circumstances of the case may be instituted, -
a. By the advocate general, or
b. With the leave of the court by two or more persons, even though no special damage
has been caused to such person by reason of such public nuisance or other wrongful
act
2. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any right of suit which
may exists independently of its provisions.

The respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.


FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Jidh Kumar is a resident for Jungpura Castle, he is famous for his books on pet
grooming and activities for pets. His work with animals started from the year 2013,
he created two internet challenge, one of them being a trendsetter. He has written a
number of books and started his own YouTube channel where he put videos on
activities, games, and lessons on pet grooming.

2. When he shifted to his present residence in 2015, he moved in with three dogs and by
December 2016 he was caretaking 16 dogs in total.

3. Around July 2017 on receiving few complaints from the neighbors of Jidh Kumar.
RWA of Junpura Townhip asked Jidh Kumar to reduce the number of dogs by giving
them up for adoption to which he clearly denied.

4. In the meanwhile a new block of apartments was constructed wherein it reduced the
sizeof the park to three fourth.

5. After that getting more complaints, this time about stinking smell of the park , RWA
asked Jidh Kumar to desist from using the park as an area for his dogs to excrete.

6. When things didn’t change and Jidh Kumar took no action for the complaint filed
against him, RWA filed case him.

.
ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether Jidh Kumar can be held liable under public nuisance?

2. Whether Jidh Kumar can be held liable for actions of his dogs?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether Jidh Kumar can be held liable under public nuisance?

The Counsel on behalf of the Respondent humbly submits that Jidh Kumar is not liable
under public nuisance, it is so because as RWA of Jungpura Association consented to
building of new block of apartments, they agreed to the coming nuisance and therefore
waived off the right to sue Jidh kumar under public nuisance.

2. Whether Jidh Kumar can be held liable for actions of his dogs?

The Counsel on behalf of the Respondent humbly submits that Jidh Kumar cannot liable
for actions of his dogs, because they lack the vicious propensity to harm anyone and
even if they did no such incident have been mentioned before.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether Jidh Kumar can be held liable under public nuisance?


1

Nuisance , A condition , activity or situation (such as loud noise or foul order)


that interferes with the use or enjoyment of property especially a non transitory
condition or persistent activity that either injures the physical condition of
adjacent land or interferes with its use or with the enjoyment of easement of the
land or public highways or an act or a failure to act resulting in a interference with
the use or enjoyment of property.1Public Nuisance is an act affecting the public at
large or some considerable portion of it and it must interfere with rights which
members of community might otherwise enjoy.2

Barking of the dog an issue

Noise, it is a sound especially one that is loud or unpleasant or that causes


disturbance to the people in the surrounding.3 Barking of a dog is a natural form
of expression of a dog and has to be tolerated.4 And since no case regarding of
excessive barking or howling is filed, the noise caused by dogs cannot be taken as
nuisance. Hence the claim of the appellant becomes arbitrary.

Stinking park

Before the construction of new block of apartments no cases of smelling of dogs


excrete came to light. When the RWA reduced the size park area, it increased the
concentration of excreta per square. It was not Jidh Kumar dogs’ fault that created
a nuisance, that makes the appellants claim ambiguous and arbitrary.

1
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Torts(26th GuruPrasana Singh)
2
3
Oxford dictionary, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/noise
4
Animal Welfare Board Of India, Guideline with respect to pets and street dogs(Feb 26, 2015)
file:///C:/Users/wel%20s/Desktop/pet_dog_circular_26_2_2015.pdf
Defence of Volenti Non Fit Injuria

When applied in suits to abate nuisances or in actions to recover damages arising


from their maintenance, it is more commonly known as the doctrine of "coming to
the nuisance," when relied upon by a defendant claiming priority of occupation
and particularly when, during the period of such prior occupation, the nuisance
complained of has been established. It savors of the rule of assumption of risk so
well known in actions for negligence.5

Here before constructing a new block of apartments, RWA knew about the
number of pets each resident had and Jind Kumar’s too. They knew the
consequences of reducing the area of the park, i.e. reducing the area of park meant
more man-animal conflict and the increase in dump concentration. Agreeing to
the construction of apartment led to their implied consent to the coming nuisance.

"If a certain noxious trade is already established in a place remote from


habitations and public roads, and persons afterwards come and build houses
within the reach of the noxious effects; or if a public road be made so near to it
that the carrying on of the trade becomes a nuisance to the persons using the road;
in those cases the party would be entitled to continue his trade, because his trade
was legal before the erection of the houses in the one case, and the making of the
road in the other."6

In this present case an occupation has already been established by Jidh Kumar and
persons coming after it and establishing their home in such a situation will not
make them entitled to sue Jidh Kumar under nuisance

5
E. St. Johns Shingle Co. v. Portland, 195 Or. 505 (1952)
6
Ibid
2. Whether Jidh Kumar can be held liable for actions of his dogs?

A person who owns or is in possession or control of an animal may become liable


for damage caused by the animal under the common law in three ways. He may
become liable under ordinary law of torts; he may become liable without any fault
when the animal is of a dangerous character or when the animal though generally
not of a dangerous character is in particular of dangerous character to the
defendant’s knowledge; and he may become liable for cattle trespass.1

Over the experience of mankind, animals are divided into two categories to make
the owner held liable;
a. Animals ferae naturae
b. Animals mansuetae naturae

Animals mansuetae naturae

According to the experience of mankind it is not dangerous and not likely to do


mischief and if the class is dealt with by mankind on that footing a person may
safely keep such an animal unless he knows that the particular animal that he
keeps as likely to do mischief. The law assumes that animals belonging to such
a class as sheep, horses , camels, dogs etc are not of a dangerous nature and
anyone who keeps an animal of this kind is not liable for the damage it may do,
unless he knew that it was dangerous.
The make the animals’ owner liable, the plaintiff complaining of such injury
from such animals have to prove that the defendant knew they were
exceptionally savage and prone to injure mankind.7

Jidh Kumar’s dogs are well trained and no single incident of them going out of
control has mentioned till date. Jidh Kumar’s are trained every morning and
since most of them are disabled they don’t have the capability to cause harm to
anyone . Nor do they have a history vicious propensity which is one the
essential element to make the owner liable for the actions of their animals.

Putting pets for adoption

7
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Torts(26th Guru Prasana Singh)
By amending bye-laws or a regulations or otherwise, such a ban cannot be put
into place since it is illegal, and does not have the sanction of law. In fact, in
trying to ban pets, or limit their number, RWA and apartment owners
association interfere with a fundamental freedom guaranteed to the citizens of
India, i.e.,the freedom to choose the life they wish to live, which includes
facets such as living with or without companion animals.8

In this case, RWA asking Jidh Kumar to give up his dogs for adoption is illegal
and immoral; they are encroaching upon the fundamental rights provided to
him under the constitution of India.

Ban on pet animals using parks

In the absence of central or state laws requiring cleaning of pet excreta by pet
owners, RWA and Apartment owners association cannot impose any rule,
regulation of bye-law, with respect to the same or impose special charges or
fines on pet owners . 9In this case, RWA asking Jidh Kumar to desist from
using the park as an area to excrete is against the guidelines provided by the
Animal Welfare Board of India.

8
Animal Welfare Board Of India, Guideline with respect to pets and street dogs(Feb 26, 2015)
file:///C:/Users/wel%20s/Desktop/pet_dog_circular_26_2_2015.pdf

9
Ibid
PRAYER

In the light of the authority citied, issues raised and arguments advanced, it is humbly prayed to
the Hon’ble court to adjudicate and rule that

 Jidh Kumar shall not be held liable under public nuisance nor liable for
actions caused by his dogs.
 Or the court may pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of
justice, equity and in good conscience.

All of which is humbly pleaded,

Counsel For Respondent