Mumbai Court restrains animal activist and family from feeding birds from apartment window due to nuisance caused to neighbours

A Mumbai court has permanently restrained an animal welfare activist's family from feeding birds outside the window of their apartment in a residential society on ground that it created nuisance for the neighbours (Dilip S Shah v. Padma Thakore)..The order by Bombay Civil Court came in a suit filed by plaintiffs, Dilip and Meena Shah, senior citizens living in a residential society in Mumbai seeking permanent injunction against the defendants, Padma and Jigisha Thakore, from creating nuisance to the other occupants of the building, Venus Co-operative Housing Society Ltd..Additional Sessions Judge AH Laddhad held that "no doubt the act of defendants feeding birds and other creature of nature is compassionate deed, which is highly appreciable and respectable but at the same time, the care needs to be taken that such act should not cause nuisance to the human beings, more particular the neighbours"..The grievance raised in the suit was that in 2009, the defendants erected a huge platform outside their balcony windows for feeding grains and water to birds which was a floor above the plaintiffs.Due to the mad rush of birds, there were bird droppings over the window sliding and channels creating foul smell and odour.The food grains offered to the birds were full of small insects, which entered the Plaintiffs' home causing nuisance, it was alleged. The plaintiffs claimed that Meena Shah also started suffering a skin disease due to the filth created by decayed food grains and bird toppings. .The plaintiffs tried to solve the issue amicably with the defendants by apprising them about the nuisance caused. When the defendants continued with their actions, the plaintiffs sent a letter to them marking the society. The defendants acknowledged in their response that while it may be a nuisance, they will not stop bird feeding as it was not an illegal or criminal act.The society in response suggested that the defendants could use the common places for bird feeding as their conduct caused nuisance to the others. The society also passed a resolution in its special general body meeting that "no members shall be allowed to feed birds from their balconies or windows".The plaintiffs also tried installing a new longer roof over their balconies to avoid the nuisance caused, but the bird ruckus continued. Despite all efforts, when the defendants continued with the bird feeding, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for permanent injunction through Kalpesh Joshi Associates..The defendants, through advocate Vaishali Ugale, opposed the suit. They counter claimed that the plaintiffs were causing pain and suffering to the birds by hitting the metal tray to shoo off the birds when they came for feeding. They should, therefore, be held guilty of offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, it was submitted. They also claimed that they had been feeding the birds for years and the suit was barred by limitation..The judge observed from the evidence before it that the number of birds started increasing after the defendants started putting out grains. From the material on record, the judge also concluded that the grains may be attracting insects. Moreover, bird droppings and humming noise of birds would be a nuisance for a reasonable man, the Court said. It, therefore, concluded that the act of the defendants is causing nuisance and restrained defendants and their family members and domestic workers from feeding birds from their balcony. "The defendant No. 1 & 2 or their family members, servants, agents are hereby restrained permanently from feeding the birds from their balcony and creating nuisance to the plaintiffs," the Court ordered. During the course of the hearing, the defendants showed their willingness to feed the birds at some other space, if society allocates the same.The judge remarked that it was unfortunate that for this "act of kindness" of the defendant, has to beg. "The society is also party to the present suit. If possible they should consider the request of the defendant No. 2 by allocating the particular place for bird feeding by the defendant No. 2 and other members of the society," the Court directed. [Read order]