Principle: Under law, persons in possession of property are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their property.
Factual Situation: Ram and his wife occupied a flat in New Delhi to reside peacefully during his retired life. His neighbour who was staying on rent was a young couple having a two months old baby. The cries of the baby disturbed Ram during his afternoon nap and at night. Irritated by the baby's cries, Ram asked the young couple to shift their residence, to which they turned a deaf ear. Ram wants to file a suit against the young couple for nuisance.

Principle: Under law, persons in possession of property are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their property.
Factual Situation: Ram and his wife occupied a flat in New Delhi to reside peacefully during his retired life. His neighbour who was staying on rent was a young couple having a two months old baby. The cries of the baby disturbed Ram during his afternoon nap and at night. Irritated by the baby's cries, Ram asked the young couple to shift their residence, to which they turned a deaf ear. Ram wants to file a suit against the young couple for nuisance. Correct Answer Ram will not succeed, as the sound of a crying baby is an expected part of quiet enjoyment of property and does not constitute a nuisance

Related Questions

In a contractual dispute between two parties A and B, A files a suit in New Delhi where the cause of action arose. Two days later, B files a suit in the same matter in Mumbai, where A is resident. The pendency of the first suit is not brought to the notice of the court in Mumbai. The court pronounces judgement in second suit before the first suit is decided. Would such decision operate as a bar on the court in New Delhi to try the suit any further?
In the question below, are given a statement followed by three courses of actions numbered I, II and III. On the basis of the information given, you have to assume everything in the statement to be true, and then decide which of the following suggested courses of actions logically follow(s) for pursuing. Statement: Soon VAT 69 whiskey and Smirnoff Vodka will not be found on the shelves of Delhi Liquor stores owing to the duplication of barcode by manufacturer United Limited. The Delhi government financial commissioner blacklisted the manufacturer. Financial commissioner Anindo Majumdar had said in an order dated September 14, that USL had violated provisions of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 and Delhi Excise Rules, 2010 by using unauthorized and loose barcodes, which could be easily misused. Courses of action: I. The ban will force United Spirits Limited not to sell its liquor in the national capital for two years. II. the appellant violated provisions of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, Delhi Excise Rules, 2010, the terms and conditions of the license issued to it and the standard operating procedure framed by the Delhi Excise Department and that consequently the department has rightly imposed the penalty of blacklisting under Rule 70 of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010 upon United Spirits LTD (USL), Aurangabad. III. United Limited has been blacklisted by the Delhi government financial commissioner.
In a suit for partition, a Memorandum of Family Settlement is filed and on this basis the partition suit is decreed, but even after disposal of the suit the original Memorandum of Family Settlement remains in the file of the partition suit, then in such situation whether in a suit for eviction by one of the original co-owner of a tenant of a shop of the joint property which has fallen to the share of that co-owner as per the decree passed on the Memorandum of Family Settlement, can the certified copy of the Memorandum of Family Settlement be filed and proved as a public document in the suit against the tenant?
A owns a residential flat. He is entitled to quiet possession and enjoyment of his property. This is called