6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ROLL NUMBER: 2018LLB097

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

IN THE MATTERS OF:

JUNGPURA TOWNSHIP
RESIDENTS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION …PETITIONER
V.

JIDH KUMAR …RESPONDANT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

UNDER SECTION 9 r/w SECTION 91 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANTS

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANTS

 6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………………………………………………… i

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………….. ii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………………………………………… iii
STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………………………………………….. iv
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ………………………………………………………………………………………. v
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………………………………………. vii
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED …………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.THAT THE SUIT FILED AGAINST JIDH KUMAR IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ……………… 1
2.THAT THE ACTS OF JIDH KUMAR DO NOT AMOUNT TO NEGLIGENCE …………….. 1
2.1 Jidh Kumar had only provided his dogs with the basic things that they need
for a peaceful living. ……………………………………………………………………………………. 1
2.2 Jidh Kumar has taken all the basic requisite measures that a pet owner living 2
In a society should take. ……………………………………………………………………………….
2.3 Jidh Kumar has responded to the complaints of his neighbours. ………………….. 3
3. THAT JIDH KUMAR CANNOT BE MADE LIABLE FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE …………… 3
3.1 Jidh Kumar is not liable for the unhygienic condition of the park. ……………….. 4
3.2 Jidh Kumar is not responsible for trivial things like barking of dogs ………………. 4
3.3 Jidh Kumar’s dogs have never caused any inconvenience by losing control. …. 5
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

[Type here]
 6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

Section 9 r/w section 91 of Civil Procedure Code …………………………………. iv

Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India ………………………………………… 1

ONLINE DATABASES

WESTLAW

HEIN ONLINE

CASE MINE

CONVENTIONS

European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals ………………………………………..1

International Convention for the Protection of Animals ………………………………………...4

[Type here]
 6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

CASES

Shri. Ajay Madhusudan Marathe Vs. New Sarvodaya CHS Ltd……………………….4

Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Others…………………………….3

Robinson v. Kilvert………………………………………………………………………4

Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus ltd. ……………………………………………………4

Alfano v. Stutsman, 471 N.E.2d 1143 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)…………………………….5

Rafat Ali v. Sugni Bai and Others………………………………………………………..5

India Tv Independent News Service ... vs Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd……………………….5

Buckle v. Holmes…………………………………………………………………………4

Manton v. Brocklebank …………………………………………………………………..4

CIRCULARS

Animal Welfare Board of India circular dated 26th February 2015…………………………. 1,2,4

ii

[Type here]
 6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. r/w : read with

2. V. : Versus

iii

[Type here]
 6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Honourable Civil Court of Andhra Pradesh has the jurisdiction in this matter under

Section 9 r/w section 91 of Civil Procedure Code 1908.

Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code states that:

The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature
excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

Section 91 of Civil Procedure Code states that:

(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 may be 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 persons 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 exist
independently of its provisions.

iv
[Type here]
[Type here]
 6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Jidh Kumar lives in a two bedroom flat in the township of Jungpura Castle. He is very famous for his
books on pet grooming and activities for pets. He was a software engineer, before turning into a fulltime
author. In 2015, he bought the flat with the help of the money he earned from his books. He is of the view
that his sole purpose of living is to nurse the disabled animals.

2. His journey to a famous animal lover started in 2013, by creating the ‘Feed Bucket Challenge’, wherein
he challenged his friends to feed 5 stray dogs by sharing a full bucket of food. The challenge was an instant
hit and it was a trendsetter. After a year, he challenged his friends to adopt stray dogs. He adopted 3 stray
dogs. The challenge was named as ‘Food and Blanket Challenge’. Though this was not as successful as the
earlier challenge, there are few posts on the social media on advantages and dangers in adopting a stray dog.

3. He moved into Jungpura Castle in 2015 with his 3 pet dogs. The large park in the centre of the township is
the main reason for him to buy a flat there, as his dogs get a lot of space to run, explore and enjoy the clean
environment. He was very happy to move into the township from his old accommodation, where he used to
get a lot of complaints from his neighbours about his dogs. In Jungpura Castle, he can see a lot of people
who own pets.

4. He started a YouTube channel by the name ‘Dog’s Jidh’, where he posts videos on activities, games and
lessons on pet grooming. By December 2016, he had adopted 16 dogs, most of which are disabled. His daily
routine starts with waking up and taking all his dogs out for a walk. All the dogs used to answer nature’s
calls during that walk in the park. The dogs urinate and excrete in the park.

5. In July 2017, on receipt of a few complaints from the neighbours of Jidh Kumar, the Residents’ Welfare
Association of Jungpura Township had formally asked Jidh Kumar to reduce the number of dogs by offering
them for adoption and also get all his dogs vaccinated for the safety of the residents. He declined and said
that he can manage all his dogs and there was not even a single incident of his dogs going out of control. In
the meanwhile, a new block of apartments was constructed in the Township, which reduced the size of the
park to one-quarter of the original size. There was a rise in the number of man-animal conflicts. There were
incidents of dog bites.

[Type here]
6. In January 2018, elections were held for the Residents’ Welfare Association of Jungpura Township. The
newly elected members resolved that the Township should be clean and that the residents should be allowed
to enjoy the premises to the fullest possible extent. In March 2018, basing on complaints relating to the noise
that the dogs make and disturbance caused, the Association had sent a notice to Jidh Kumar for controlling
his dogs, as the exam season for the children is fast approaching; to which he replied that it is natural for the
dogs to bark.

7. By June 2018, it was found that the park is stinking and filled with animal excreta. There was no clean
space for the children to play. The Association found that apart from Jidh Kumar, only three other residents
of the Township had pets. All the three have one dog each. The Association asked Jidh Kumar to stop using
the park as an area for his dogs to excrete, and also to ensure that his dogs should not harm anybody. Jidh
Kumar said that the Association cannot dictate terms to him; he knows how to behave and how to live in the
Township.

8. His daily routine did not change due to which the association filed a suit on him.

vi

6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

 STATEMENT OF ISSSUES

Issue 1:
Whether the suit filed against Jidh Kumar is maintainable.

Issue 2:
Whether the acts of Jidh Kumar amount to negligence.

Issue 3:
Whether Jidh Kumar can be made liable for public nuisance.

vii
 6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1:
Whether the suit filed against Jidh Kumar is maintainable.
It is humbly submitted that the suit filed against Jidh Kumar is not maintainable.

Issue 2:
Whether the acts of Jidh Kumar amount to negligence.
It is humbly submitted that the acts of Jidh Kumar do not amount to negligence as he had responded to the
complaints of the neighbours and had also trained his dogs. Also Jidh Kumar cannot be made liable as he
had taken care of his dogs and informed that he can manage them. Also there was not a single incident of his
dogs going out of control.

Issue 3:
Whether Jidh Kumar can be made liable for public nuisance.
Jidh Kumar cannot be held liable for public nuisance as the facts of the case show that there were no
incidents where his dogs caused damage of any sort to public at large. Incidents like dogs barking were
affecting a particular part of the population who complained of disturbance to children during the exam
season and not the entire population had a problem with it. Also dogs barking is very natural and such
matters would fall under the legal maxim “De minimis non curat lex”, which means that the law does not
take care of very trifling matters. The bad smell due to dogs exctretia is because of the reduction in the size
of the park to one-fourth of its original size. The barking of dogs is natural and cannot be complained about.
 6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.The suit filed against Jidh Kumar is not maintainable

A suit cannot be filed under section 9 r/w section 91 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.In the present case
the suit cannot be maintained as there was no negligence on the part of Jidh Kumar, who has followed the
rules as a pet owner for maintaining his dogs. Also there was no negligence on his part as he had trained his
dogs and there were no incidences of his dogs going out of control.

There was also no public nuisance caused as Jidh Kumar is not liable for acts like barking of dogs which is
very trivial in nature and cannot be considered as a ground for public nuisance. He is also not liable for the
bad smell as there was no problem before the reduction in the park size and the problem had arisen only
after the size of the park was reduced.

Also the constitution in itself directs the people to have compassion for all living creatures1 , and it is against
the rules established by Animal Welfare Board of India to ban residents from keeping pets even by a
majority vote2.

2. The acts of Jidh Kumar do not amount to negligence.

The acts of Jidh Kumar do not amount to negligence as: 1.1) Jidh Kumar had only provided his dogs with
the basic needs that they need for a peaceful living. 1.2) Jidh Kumar had taken all the basic requisite
measures that a pet owner living in a society has to take. 1.3) Jidh Kumar had responded to the complaints
from the neighbours.

2.1) Jidh Kumar had only provided his dogs with the basic needs that they need for a peaceful living.

The following are the basic universal norms to be followed by pet owners3:

Safety—Providing a secure enclosure that addresses physical safety, fear, and stress;

Food and water—Providing easy access to food and water;

Biological needs—Maintaining appropriate body temperature, permitting urination and defecation,

ensuring timely waste removal, and, as appropriate, facilitating or preventing reproduction;

Cleanliness—Keeping animals dry and clean, depending on species requirements;

Restraint—Avoiding unnecessary physical restraint; and

Behaviour—Ensuring the animals' ability to engage in normal species behaviour.

1.Article 51A(g) of The Constitution of India 2. Animal welfare Board of India circular, 26th February 2015

3. European Convention for Protection of Pet Rights 1

 6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Jidh Kumar had only followed these rules by providing his pets with the requirements mentioned above. By
providing these he has not violated his neighbours rights but only fulfilled the motive of giving his dogs all
the basic things they need for a comfortable existence.

2.2) Jidh Kumar has taken all the basic requisite measures that a pet owner living in a society has to
take.

The following are the basic measures that a pet owner living in a society has to take4:

1. Pet owners rightly can consider their pets as family members but they have to ensure their pets don't
cause inconvenience to others. 
2. No Resident Welfare Association has the right to ban residents from keeping pets in their apartments, not
even by getting a majority vote in the society with the help of other tenants or residents. Doing so is a
violation of the law. 
3. Barking, which is a natural form of expression of a dog, has to be tolerated in a society. Pet owners must
make an effort to keep their dogs quiet, especially during night hours.
4. If pet owners abide by the municipal laws regarding pets then no civic body has the right to ban the pets
or their owners from the society.
5. No pets can be banned from lifts. No ban or special charges can be imposed on pet owners for using lifts
with their pets.
6. Leashing the dog is advisable (but not compulsory) when the dog is taken out for walks. It will make the
people around feel safe. Leashing also ensures the safety of the pet from being run over by vehicles.
7. Even if Residents' Welfare Association cannot impose fines on any pet owner who do not clean their pet's
excreta, they can  request pet owners to clean up after their dogs defecate for society’s cleanliness.

8. Pet owners are advised to “scoop the poop”, or together with residents welfare association and
apartment owners association, and other residents experiment with the creation of pet defecation areas
within the premises or come up with imaginative solutions through consensus. Residents welfare association
and apartments owners association cannot however impose fines and special charges of any kind on pet
owners, because there is no mandate in law for the same.

4.Animal Welfare Board of India Circular, 26th February 2015

2
 6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2.3) Jidh Kumar has responded to the complaints from his neighbours.
It is also to be considered that Jidh Kumar has not turned a deaf ear towards his neighbours but has
responded to the complaints made by them.

The association had asked him in July 2017 to reduce the number of dogs owned by him, based on a few
complaints from the neighbours. To this he replied by saying that he can manage his dogs and that there was
not a single incident of his dogs going out of control. As Jidh Kumar used to make youtube videos on
training and breeding dogs he would surely have trained his dogs to maintain decorum.

Similarly in March 2018 and June 2018 the association had basing on complaints on dogs barking and the
park stinking on two different occasions communicated with Jidh Kumar. He replied by saying that it is
natural for dogs to bark the first time. And the second time he replied by saying that he knows how to live in
a community and that the association cannot dictate terms to him.

So Jidh Kumar has followed the rules required for maintaining pets in a society. He has also not tried to
violate any others(neighbours) rights but has only tried to provide his pets with the very basic freedom and
rights required for their peaceful and happy living. These are required as it is to be remembered that many
countries and the Supreme Court of India as well have ruled that “Animals have a right to live with honour
and dignity.”5

Also it is to be remembered that, , Resident Welfare Associations cannot ask for the removal or dislocation
of street dogs and neither can they levy fines on the owners of pet dogs. They can only request for their
sterilisation and vaccination, so that their population growth is curbed, as per the Animal Birth Control
Rules 2001, drafted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of India.

3. Jidh Kumar cannot be made liable for public nuisance.

Jidh Kumar is not liable for public nuisance. He cannot be made liable for public nuisance due to the
following reasons: 3.1) Jidh Kumar is not liable for the unhygienic condition of the park. 3.2) Jidh Kumar is
not responsible for trivial things like barking of dogs. 3.3) Jidh Kumar’s dogs have never caused any
inconvenience by losing control.

5. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Others, Indlaw SC 412 (2014) 3
 6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

3.1) Jidh Kumar is not liable for the unhygienic condition of the park.
Jidh kumar is not responsible for the unhygienic condition of the park as he had only made use of his
facilities for his dogs which he is entitled to do under the law.6

It is not Jidh Kumar but the construction of a new block which is responsible for this unhygienic condition
of the park. It was this construction of a new block that led to the decrease in the size of the park to 1/4th of
its original size thereby increasing man-animal conflicts as well.

It is this reduction in size which led to the unhygienic condition of the park where children do not have
enough place to play.

It can also be noted that though Jidh Kumar had 16 dogs by December 2016, it was not until after the
construction of the new block and the consequences that followed that in June 2018 there were complaints
about the condition of the park. This clearly shows that Jidh Kumar’s dogs are not the reason for the
unhygienic condition of the park.

It can also be considered that in the absence of any state or central laws regarding cleaning of pet excreta by
pet owners, the resident’s welfare associations cannot impose any such law or impose any fines or special
charges on such owners. But they may request the owner to collect the excreta.7

3.2) Jidh Kumar is not responsible for trivial things like barking of dogs.
Jidh Kumar cannot be held liable for trivial things like barking of dogs. These things would fall under the
legal maxim “De minimis non curat lex”, which means that the law does not take care of very trifling
matters. Animal Welfare Board of India made it clear that barking of dogs is not a valid reasons for banning
dogs from apartments8. As the dog barking had also only affected a particular part of the population, who
were concerned with the exam season of the children, hence this was very delicate in nature and also it must
be remembered that Jidh Kumar’s dogs had made noise in his own premises.9

Also a dog cannot be controlled from barking as, no pet animal shall be trained in a way that is detrimental
to its health and welfare, especially by forcing it to exceed its natural capacities or strength or by employing
artificial aids which cause injury or unnecessary pain, suffering or distress10. Barking is ordinary to its kind
and there is no vicious propensity of the dog11. Hence there cannot be a complaint against the natural
tendency of animals12.

6. Shri. Ajay Madhusudan Marathe Vs. New Sarvodaya CHS Ltd 7. Animal Welfare Board of India Circular, dated 26th
February 2015 8. Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus ltd., 2 QBI, (1957) 9. Robinson v. Kilvert, 41 Ch.D. 88, (1889)
10. International Convention for Protection of Animals 11. Buckle v. Holmes, 2 K.B. 125, (1926)

12. Manton v. Brocklebank , 2 K.B. 212, (1923) 4

 6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

3.3) Jidh Kumar’s dogs have never caused any inconvenience by losing control.
It is to be considered that there was not a single incident of Jidh Kumar’s dogs losing control and causing
any damage or inconvenience to any of his neighbours to establish public nuisance13. This also shows that
his dogs though stray dogs were well trained by him.

Although there was a mention in the facts to the issues of man-animal conflicts and dog bites after the
construction of the new block there is no velar evidence in the facts to show that those conflicts and the
problems of dos bites were caused by Jidh Kumar’s dogs.

Hence Jidh Kumar cannot be made liable for public nuisance under the rule that the owner of an animal is
strictly liable if the animal even if tame loses control and causes inconvenience14.

So therefore Jidh Kumar cannot be made responsible as he is not liable for public nuisance15.

13. Alfano v. Stutsman, 471 N.E.2d 1143 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) 14. India Tv Independent News Service ... vs Yashraj Films Pvt.

Ltd., Indlaw DEL 1663, (2012) 15. Rafat Ali v. Sugni Bai and Others, SC 157 , JT 1998 (8) 5
 6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
requested that this Honourable Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. That the suit filed by the Residents’ Welfare Association of Jungpura Township is not maintainable
before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
2. That the acts of Jidh Kumar do not amount to negligence.
3. That Jidh Kumar cannot be made liable for public nuisance.