Each question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this section to test your knowledge of law.

PRINCIPLE: Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. If the interference is 'direct', the wrong is trespass; whereas, if the interference is 'consequential', it amounts to nuisance.

FACTS: 'A' plants a tree on his land. However, he allows its branches to project over the land of 'B'.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

The correct answer is 'A' has committed nuisance.

Let us carefully break down the principle and the facts to arrive at this conclusion.

Understanding the Principle:

The principle defines two distinct legal wrongs:

1. Trespass — occurs when the interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land is direct.
2. Nuisance — occurs when the interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land is consequential (i.e., indirect).

Analysing the Facts:

'A' plants a tree on his own land. He does not enter 'B's land, nor does he place any object directly onto 'B's property. However, over time, the branches of 'A's tree are allowed to project (overhang) over the land of 'B'.

Applying the Principle to the Facts:

Step 1 — Was there an interference?
Yes. The overhanging branches encroach upon 'B's airspace above his land, which interferes with 'B's use and enjoyment of that land.

Step 2 — Was the interference direct or consequential?
'A' did not go onto 'B's land himself, nor did he throw anything or place anything directly on 'B's land. The interference arose as a consequence of 'A' planting and allowing the tree to grow on his own land — the branches gradually projected over 'B's property. This is a consequential (indirect) interference, not a direct one.

Step 3 — Which wrong applies?
Since the interference is consequential, the principle tells us this amounts to Nuisance, not Trespass.

Why not Trespass?
Trespass requires a direct act of interference — for example, if 'A' himself walked onto 'B's land, or deliberately threw branches onto it. Here, the intrusion happened as an indirect, gradual result of the tree's natural growth, making it consequential in nature.

Why not "No nuisance"?
There is a clear interference with 'B's enjoyment of his land through the overhanging branches. Ignoring the problem (allowing the branches to project) makes 'A' responsible, as he is the one who planted the tree and permitted this situation to arise.

Conclusion:
Since 'A' planted a tree on his own land and allowed its branches to project over 'B's land — causing a consequential (indirect) interference with 'B's enjoyment of his property — 'A' has committed Nuisance as per the given principle.