Step 1: Understand defences to nuisance.
- Adverse Possession: This defence applies when the defendant has been in continuous possession of the land for a long time and is generally accepted as a defence in nuisance cases.
- Easementary Rights: The defendant has a right of way or other easementary rights, which are recognised as defences in nuisance actions.
- Good Faith: Good faith can act as a defence in some nuisance cases, especially when the defendant can show that the action was not intended to harm others.
- Voluntary Harm: This is not typically a recognised defence in nuisance cases, as voluntary harm does not excuse the interference.
Step 2: Conclusion.
The correct answer is (A), (B) and (D) only.
Match List I (General Defences in Tort) with List II (Leading Cases) and select the correct answer:
| List I | List II | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| i. | Act of God | 1. | Nichols v. Marsland (1876) 2 Ex. D. 1 |
| ii. | Consent (Volenti non fit injuria) | 2. | Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1933) 1 KB 205 |
| iii. | Statutory Authority | 3. | Vaughan v. Taff Vale Rail Co. (1860) 5 H & N 679 |
| iv. | Necessity | 4. | Kirk v. Gregory (1876) 1 Ex. D. 55 |
Match List-I with List-II\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Provision} & \textbf{Case Law} \\ \hline \text{(A) Strict Liability} & \text{(1) Ryland v. Fletcher} \\ \hline \text{(B) Absolute Liability} & \text{(II) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India} \\ \hline \text{(C) Negligence} & \text{(III) Nicholas v. Marsland} \\ \hline \text{(D) Act of God} & \text{(IV) MCD v. Subhagwanti} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
