Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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
2. Whether Jidh Kumar can be held liable for actions of his dogs?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
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
Stinking park
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.