Concurrent findings of actionable nuisance warrant no interference in second appeal absent perversity.

Respondent No. 8, the plaintiff, and the appellant, defendant No. 8, were brothers who jointly owned ancestral property.

The plaintiff alleged that the appellant maintained a kucha latrine, discharged sewage and foul water which overflowed into the plaintiff’s premises, and disconnected the plaintiff’s domestic water-supply line passing through the ancestral property.

The plaintiff sought compensation of Rs. 5,00,000, demolition of the kucha latrine, construction of a sanitary latrine with septic-tank provision, and restoration of the water connection.

The Trial Court awarded Rs. 1,00,000 against the appellant, directed construction of a sanitary latrine, and directed the municipal authorities to demolish the kucha latrine after ensuring such construction.

The first appellate court initially disposed of the appeal without adequately considering the evidence; that judgment was set aside in RSA No. 27/2025 and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

On remand, the appellate court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, upheld the award of Rs. 1,00,000, but set aside the award of interest.

The appellant thereafter filed the present second appeal.

Whether the concurrent findings that the appellant disconnected the plaintiff’s water-supply line and caused nuisance through the use of a kucha latrine and discharge of sewage were perverse or warranted interference in second appeal.

Whether the appellant was liable to compensate the plaintiff for the alleged nuisance, obstruction of water-supply repairs, and resulting hardship.

Whether the reliefs and directions issued by the courts below required interference by the High Court.

The High Court applied the principle governing interference in a second appeal that concurrent findings of fact, based on proper appreciation of evidence, should not be disturbed in the absence of perversity or a substantial legal error.

It further applied the law of actionable nuisance, under which conduct causing substantial inconvenience, pollution, or interference with the ordinary use and enjoyment of another’s property may attract compensatory liability.

The Court also accepted the factual and legal significance of the municipal authorities’ position that responsibility for the water line beyond the ferrule point lay with the property owner, particularly where municipal officials were prevented from carrying out repairs.

No specific statutory provision or precedent was cited as the basis of the High Court’s decision.

Both courts below relied on the plaintiff’s testimony, official correspondence, and the appellant’s admissions to find that the appellant had disconnected the water line and resisted municipal efforts to repair it.

The evidence also established that sewage and waste water from the appellant’s kucha latrine caused pollution and flowed into the plaintiff’s premises, thereby constituting nuisance.

The appellant’s denial was insufficient to displace these concurrent factual findings, particularly as he admitted that the plaintiff’s separate water connection passed through his land and that the municipal authorities had been unable to undertake repairs because of resistance from him and his family.

Since the findings were supported by the evidence and were not shown to be perverse, the High Court held that the limited scope of second appellate jurisdiction did not permit reappreciation or reversal of those findings.

The award of Rs. 1,00,000 in favour of the plaintiff and the consequential directions concerning construction of a sanitary latrine and demolition of the kucha latrine remained undisturbed, while the first appellate court’s decision setting aside interest was not interfered with.

No order as to costs was made, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.