Q. 1.

Distinguish between "Injurria Sine Damnum" and "Damnum sine Injuria"

with the help of decided cases.

INJURIA SINE DAMNUM

The word 'damnum' means damage. This damage may be loss of health, loss or
service, physical hurt & loss of money or the like. The word 'injuria' means a legal
injury or an infringement of legal right. The word 'sine' means without. So the maxim
means the infringement of any legal right without damage. Where there is
infringement of legal right action lies against that act. Therefore, if any legal right is
infringed, it is immaterial whether any loss is sustained or not, this maxim 'injuria sine
damnum affords right to sue for legal remedy. It is just reverse to the maxim damnum
sine injuria.

Leading cases:

Ashby v. white:-

In this case the defendant, the returning officer, wrongfully refused to register a duly
tendered vote of plaintiff, a legally qualified voter, at a parliamentary election and the
candidate for whom the vote was tendered was elected, and no loss was suffered by
me rejection of the vote. Here the defendant maliciously refused to register me vote of
plaintiff This is considered as legal damage caused to plaintiff as it is Infringement of
the fundamental rights of a person who has right to vote and is unconstitutional. The
court held that the action was allowed on the ground mat the violation of plaintiff’s
statutory right was an injury for which he must have a remedy and was actionable
without proof of pecuniary damage.

2. Bhim singh v. state of Jammmu and Kashmir:-

In this case the petitioner was an MLA of Jammu and Kash mar assembly was
wrongfully detained by the police while he was going to attend the assembly session.
He was not produced before the magistrate within the requisite period. As the
consequence of this the member was deprived of his constitutional right to attend the
assembly session. There was also violation of fundamental nghtto personal liberty
guaranteed under article 21 of India constitution. In hhis case the gourt orderedto pay
exemplary damages of Rs. 50.000 to the petitioner
Thus the maxim 'injuria sine damno means that infringement of a legal right will give
flse to action irrespective of the fact that no adtual loss or damage has taken place.

3. Municipal Board of Agra V. Ashrafi Lal:-

In the above case the plaintiff was entitled to be entered as an elector upon the
electoral roll. His name was wrongfully omitted from the electoral roll and as such he
was deprived of his right to vote. On an action by the plaintiff it was held by the court
that if any person entitled to be on the electoral roll of any constituency is omitted
from such roll so as to be deprived of his right to vote and so as to given the returning
officer an adequate ground for refusing him the right to vote. When the matter has to
he decided summarily and that refusal or omission from the roll, as the case may he,
turns out on investigation to be wrongful, he has suffered a legal wrong & which an
action his against a person depriving him of his right.
 DAMNUM SINE INJURIA
The maxim ‘damnum sine injuria’ ‘literally means that there is an act which caused
damage but no legal right is infringed. Such an act is not actionable in the law of
Torts.

The word ‘damnum’ means damage. This damage may be loss of health, loss of
service, physical hurt and loss of money or the like. The word ‘injuria’ means a legal
injury or tortuous act or an infringement of legal right. And the word ‘sine ‘means
without. So the maxim means that a damage without infringement of any legal right.
Where there is no infringement of legal right, whatever loss one may sustain, no
action lies against that act which is not at all a wrongful. Therefore, ‘damnum sine
injuria’ does not afford any right to sue for legal remedy including claim of
compensation and etc.

In order to make a person liable in law, the plaintiff must prove that he sustained legal
injury. Damage without injury is not actionable. There are many acts which are,
though harmful, are not wrongful, in the eye of law, and therefore, do not give rise to
a right of action in favour of the person who sustains the damage.

CASES RELETED TO DAMNUN SINE INJURIA:-

1) Mayor of Bradford v. Pickles:-

Corporation of Bradford was supplying water from its well. Defendant was having
adjacent land to the corporation land wherein there was well.
Defendant was willing to sell his land. He approached the mayor of corporation.
Negotiations failed. Defendant dug well in his own land .thereby cutting the
underground supply of water of corporation well this has caused a loss to corporation
because there was no adequate supply of water to the people of corporation. Plaintiff
sued Deft for damages for malice. It was held that
defendant is not liable, because defendant's act is not wrongful as not violated legal
right or plaintiff. There is factual malice; ill will digging well in his own land does
not amount to tort.
2. Gloucester Grammar school case:-

Defendant was school teacher in plaintiff's school. Because of some dispute

Defendant left plaintiff's school and started his own school. As defendant was very
famous amongst students or his teaching, boys from plaintiff’s school left and joined
to Defendant School. Plaintiff sued Defendant for monetary loss caused. It was held
that defendant is not liable. Compensation is no ground of action even though
monetary loss in caused if no legal right is violated of anybody.

3. Mogul steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow and Co.:-

A number of steamship companies combined together and drove the plaintiff

company out of the tea-carrying trade by offering reduced freight. The House of
Lords held that the plaintiff had no cause of action as the defendants had by lawful
means acted to protect and extend their trade and increase their profits.

The major differences between the two maxims

Sr. No. Injuria Sine Damnum Damnum Sine Injuria

It means violation of a legal right It means actual or substantial

1-
without causing any harm loss or damage without infringement of a
damage to the plaintiff. legal right.

It is always actionable It is never actionable

2-
Contemplates legal wrong where Contemplates only moral wrongs
3-
there is remedy without any remedy.

Defendant act illegally to violate Defendant acts legally and thereby

4-
legal right of plaintiff. causes harm to plaintiff
Q.2 Ram dug trench and constructed a bund on his land in order to ward off
the flow of flood water into his land from a neighboring stream as a result of
Ram's act the water inundated Shanti's land what remedy is available to Shanti
under law of forts ? Would your answer be different if Ram's act is guided by
personal enmity with Shanti.

The following case of Ram and Shanti, is the case of maxim "Damnum Sine Injuria
i.e. Damages without legal injury. The Ram has dug up a trench and created a bund on
his land which is a lawful act as a person who is the owner of a property can create a
structure which is permissible under law. On the other hand he constructed the bund
for the defense of his property. The trench and bund were created to ward off flood
water from his land. But unfortunately water inundated into the land of Shanti, which
is misfortune. Shanti suffered damages but her no legal right is violated so no cause of
action lies.

The above can also be appreciated through an example.

P. Seetharamayya V. Mahalakshmiamma

This case came in front of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Where four defendants
tried to ward off the flow of water into their lands from a stream by digging a trench
& putting up a bund on their lands. The 5th defendant also did the same to prevent the
flow of water on land. As a result of these independent acts of the five defendants the
rainwater flowed to the plaintiff's land and caused damage. The plaintiff filed a suit
for damages; The HC held that owner of the land has a right to build a fence upon his
ground to prevent damage by the overflow of water, even though as a consequence of
this Act, the overflow of water is diverted to the neighbor's land & cases damage.

Another question is that whether Ram will be liable if he has done the act as a
personal enmity against Shanti.

The answer is that he will not be held liable as he has done lawful act and if a lawful
act is done even with an intention then that act doesn’t become unlawful. The motive
is generally irrelevant in tort; this is used to determine the damages. The malice also
doesn't have so much role in deciding a tortuous liability if the act is lawful. This was
held in the case of Mayor of Bradford V. Pickles
The facts were that the defendant was annoyed when the Bradford Corporation
refused to purchase his land in connection with the scheme of water supply for the
inhabitants of the town. In revenge the defendant sank & shaft on his own land which
diminished & discolored the underground water flowing to the land of plaintiff. The
plaintiff sued the defendant on the ground that the act done by the defendant upon his
land was unlawful because it was guided by and evil motive. The House of Lords help
that the act done by the defendant upon his land was not actionable when he was
within legal rights, even though his motive was to prejudice his neighbor.