LAKSHMI.

TALASILA

Damnum Sine injuria & Injuria Sine Damnum Asst. Professor

There are three elements which need to be proved before constituting a tort:-

1. There must be an act or omission on the part of the defendant.

2. That act or omission should be in violation of a legal right vested in the plaintiff.
3. The wrongful act or omission thus done by the defendant is of such a nature to give
rise to a legal remedy.
Both the maxims are divided into three parts as follows:-

 Damnum/Damno means substantial harm, loss or damage with respect to the money,
health, etc.
 Injuria means an infringement of a right given by the law to the plaintiff.
 Sine means without.

These two maxims fall under the category of qualified rights, & in the cases of qualified rights
there is no presumption of damages and the violation of such rights is actionable only on the
proof of damages.

Damnum Sine Injuria

Damnum sine Injuria is a legal maxim which refers to as damages without injury or damages
in which there is no infringement of any legal right which are vested with the plaintiff. Since
no legal right has been infringed so no action lies in the cases of damnum sine injuria.

It is an implied principle in law that there are no remedies for any moral wrongs, unless and
until any legal right has been infringed. Even if the act or omission such done by the defendant
was intentional, the Court will not grant any damages to the plaintiff.

Gloucester Grammar School (1410)

The respondent, in this case, was a former teacher at the plaintiff’s school who quit after a
fistfight and opened a new school in the neighborhood near. Because of the teacher’s
popularity, many students followed in his footsteps and enrolled at his rival school. As a
consequence, the plaintiff suffered financial losses, and a suit for payment of compensation
was filed in court.
The issue before the aforementioned court here is whether the respondent could be held
responsible under the doctrine of ‘Damnum sine Injuria.’

Furthermore, the respectable court ruled that no monetary compensation can be granted, even
though the plaintiff had suffered compensatory damages, due to the lack of evidence of a
violation of legal rights. Moreover, the respondent was within his basic legal rights to
establish and maintain a school, & the act didn’t infringe the plaintiff’s rights. Economic
losses incurred as a result of the respondent’s actions cannot be actually regarded as an
encroachment of legal rights.

Mayor & Co. of Bradford vs. Pickles (1895)

The Bradford Corporation was supplying water from its own well. Defendant (Pickles) held
adjacent land to the area from which the Bradford Corporation was providing water & had dug
a well. The respondent immediately informed the Bradford Corporation that he was interested
in selling his property to them. To discuss the situation, he contacted the Mayor of the Bradford
Corporation. However, the meeting was failed. The Corporation of Bradford claimed that the
defendant built a well on his own property, severing the corporation’s underground water
supply. Because there was no appropriate supply of water to distribute to the people who
resided under the Corporation’s control, the corporation suffered a financial loss.
Pickles was sued by the Corporation of Bradford for damages caused for malice. It was held
that the defendant is not accountable since the defendant’s conduct was not unlawful because
it did not infringe on the plaintiff’s legal rights (Corporation of Bradford). The act of the
defendant or conduct was unneighborly, but the court found no cause of action against him
because he had not infringed on the plaintiff’s rights.
Chesmore v.Richards ( 1 8 5 9 )

The plaintiff, a mill owner was using water for over 60 years from a stream which was
chiefly supplied by the percolating underground water. The defendants dug a well on their
land deep enough to stop the larger volume of water going to plaintiff's stream. Held,
that the plaintiff has no right of action since it was a case of damnum sine injuria.

Moghul Steamship Company v. McGregor Gow &Co (1892) A.C 25

A number of steamship companies acting in combination agreed to regulate the cargoes and
freight charges between China and Europe. A general rebate of 5 per cent was allowed to all
suppliers who shipped with the members of the combination. As a result of this action, the
plaintiffs had to bring down their rates to that level which was un remunerative to them.
'Held, that there was no cause of action as the defendants had acted with lawful means to
increase their trade and profits. No legal injury was caused and the case fell withinthe
maxim damnum sine injuria.
Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal A I R 1 9 7 5 A l l 1 3 2
A legal act, though motivated by malice, will not make the defendant liable. The plaintiff
can get compensation only if he proves to have suffered injury because of an illegal act of
the defendant. The plaintiff constructed 16 shops on the old foundations of a building,
without giving a notice of intention to erect a building under section 178 of the Uttar.
Pradesh Municipalities Act and without obtaining necessary sanction required under section
108 of that Act. The defendants (Town Area Committee) demolished this construction. In
an action against the defendant to claim compensation for the demolition the plaintiff alleged
that the action of the defendants was illegal as it was malifide, the municipal commissioner
being an enemy of his. It was held that the defendants were not liable as no "injuria”
(violation of a legal right) could be proved because if a person constructs a building illegally,
the demolition of such building by the municipal authorities would not amount to causing
"injuria" to the owner of the property.

Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir AIR 1978 Guj 13

the plaintiffs sued for a permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from
exhibiting the film named "Jai Santoshi Maa". It was contended that the film hurt the
religious feelings of the plaintiff in so far as Goddesses Saraswati, Laxmi and Parvati were
depicted as jealous and were ridiculed. It was observed that hurt to religious feelings had not
been recognized as a legal wrong. Moreover, no person has a legal right to enforce his
religious views on another or to restrain another from doing a lawful act, merely because it
did not fit in with the tenets of his particular religion. Since there was no violation of a legal
right, request of injunction was rejected.

Injuria Sine Damnum

Injuria sine damno is a violation of a legal right without causing any harm, loss or damage to
the plaintiff and whenever any legal right is infringed, the person in whom the right is vested
is entitled to bring an action. Every person has an absolute right to his property, to the immunity
of his person, and to his liberty & infringement of this right is actionable per se. A person
against whom the legal right has been infringed has a cause of action such that even a violation
of any legal right knowingly brings the cause of action.Thus, this maxim provides for,

1) Infringement of a legal right of a person.

2) No actual loss or damage is required to prove.
3) Infringement of a private right is actionable per se.

Ashby vs. White (1703)

the plaintiff was a qualified voter at a Parliamentary election, but defendant, a returning
officer, wrongfully refused to take plaintiff’s vote. No loss was suffered by such refusal
because the candidate for whom he wanted to vote won the election. Plaintiff succeeded in
his action. Lord Holt, C.J., observed as follows, "If the plaintiff has a right he must of
necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, anda remedy if he is injured in the
exercise or enjoyment of it, and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy,
for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal". "Every injury imports a damage,
though it does not cost a party one penny and it is impossible to prove the contrary, for the
uamage is not merely pecuniary, but an injury imports a damage, when a man is thereby
hindered of his right. As in an action for slanderous words, though a man does not lose a
penny by reason of the speaking of them, yet he shall have an action.

In Municipal Board of Agra v Asharfi Lal

the facts are, the Plaintiff (Asharfi Lal) was entitled to be entered as an elector upon the
electoral roll. His name was wrongfullyomitted from the electoral roll and he was deprived
of his right to vote. It was held bythe court that if any duly qualified citizen or person
entitled to be on the electoral roll of an constituency is omitted from such roll so as to be
deprived of his right to vote, he has suffered a legal wrong, he has been deprived of a right
recognised by law and he has against the person so depriving him, a remedy, that is, an
action lies against a person depriving I him of his right.
Bhim Singh v. State of J&K AIR 1986 SC 494
Bhim Singh was a member of the J&k State Legislative Assembly who was detained by state
police while on his way to a legislative assembly vote and detained indefinitely without
charge. His wife filed a Habeas Corpus petition to gain his malafide release. Following an
investigation, it was discovered that the MLA was not brought before a court within the legal
timeframe of 24 hours following his detention and that the police had illegally obtained the
arrest warrants under suspicious circumstances, implying police complicity with competing
political parties.
The apex Court determined MLA Bhim Singh’s democratic right & awarded him with
exemplary dsamages of Rs. 50,000 in compensatory losses. In addition, the appropriate
police official was penalized for neglect of duty and misconduct.
S.No Damnum Sine Injuria Injuria sine Damnum

Damnum sine Injuria refers to

Injuria Sine damnum is the
the damages suffered by the
legal injury caused to the
1. plaintiff but no damage is being
plaintiff without any damage
caused to the legal rights as
to the physical injury.
there is no violation of it

It is an infringement of a
It is the losses suffered without
legal right where even if no
the infringement of any legal
2. loss has been suffered by the
right hence creating no cause of
plaintiff still creates an
action.
actionable cause of action.

No compensation in the form of Compensation in the form of

3. damages is awarded by the damages is awarded by the
court. court.

This maxim is for the legal

This maxim is for the moral
wrongs which are actionable
4. wrongs which have no action in
if the person’s legal right has
the eyes of the law.
been violated.

The principle of this maxim

The principle of this maxim is
is that whenever there is an
that a person exercises in such a
invasion of a legal right there
manner within reasonable
5. creates a cause of action and
limits which does not ground
the person whose right is
action in tort merely because it
vested is entitled to bring an
causes damages to other people
action.

In this, the plaintiff suffers

In this, the plaintiff suffers a
legal injury doesn’t matter
6. loss but has suffered no legal
they have suffered any loss
injury.
on that account.

Damages without injury are not This is actionable since there

7.
actionable is a violation of a legal right.