VIVEKANADA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

Total words-4161

Law of torts research project-

Injuria sine Damno

and Damnum sine
Injuria
Submitted by-Reeya Prakash

Enrollment number-
00717703819

Semester 2 sec-A

Submitted to-

Prof. Ms. Chhabi Ojha

 INDEX

1.INTRODUCTION

1.1 LEGAL DAMAGE

1.2 INJURIA SINE DAMNUM

1.3 CASE LAWS OF INJURIA SINE DAMNUM

1.4 DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

1.5 CASE LAWS OF DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

2. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN “INJURIA SINE DAMNUM” & “DAMNUM SINE INJURIA"

3.CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
1.1LEGAL DAMAGE
It is important to prove that the plaintiff has suffered a legal damage to be successful for the
action of tort. It is important to prove that there was a wrongful act or omission which cause
breach of duty or violation of legal right vested in plaintiff. If there is no violation of legal right
of the plaintiff the same cannot be actionable under law of torts ,but if there has been violation of
legal right then the same is actionable irrespective of the fact that the plaintiff has suffered a loss
or not. The same can be explained through a maxim “injuria sine damno”. It explains that
violation of legal right is actionable and when there is no infringement of legal right no action
can be taken against the defendant in the court law, even though the acts of the defendant cause
any harm, loss, or damage to plaintiff. This situation is explained or expressed by a maxim
“Damnum sine Injuria” it simply means damage without violation/infringement of legal right
rights and if there is no infringement of legal right thus the same is not actionable in the court of
law .The damage may be in the form of money, service, physical health, loss of health or
reputation and loss of comfort but without any violation of legal rights. The reason because of
which the same is not actionable is the if the interference in the rights of another person is not
unlawful or unauthorized but necessary consequences of the exercise of his own lawful rights by
the defendant no action lies.

1.2 INJURIA SINE DAMNO

Injuria sine Damno is a legal maxim derive from a Latin word which means injury caused to
party without actually suffering any physical harm, loss or damage or infringement of an
absolute private right without any actual loss or damage..In Latin “Injuria” means injury “sine”
means without and “Damno” means damage, therefore the term refers to “injury suffered without
actual damage” .When there is infringement or violation of legal right, the person who’s legal
right is violated can approach court to recover his/her damage even though he has not suffered
actual harm. In this case the plaintiff does not have to prove the damages so suffered; the
plaintiff just has to prove that there has been a infringement of his/ her legal right.

There are two kinds of torts -

1. Those torts which are actionable without the proof of any damage or loss
2. Torts which are actionable only on proof of damage or loss caused by an act.

Injuria sine Damno falls under the first category, there is no requirement to prove as a
consequence of defendant’s act the plaintiff has suffered any harm.

The plaintiff suffered loss that’s why he received damage therefore the amounts of damages are
determined just to compensate the victim. The court is bound to provide at least nominal
damages for loss suffered by the plaintiff.
 Infringement
of right

Injuria Sine
Damno
Actionable
No loss

1.3 Case laws of Injuria Sine Damno

Ashby v. White (1703)92 ER 1261

Explaining the maxim “ Injuria Sine Damno “.In this case the plaintiff succeeded in is
action ,even though the defendants act does not cause any damage

FACTS- The plaintiff was a qualified voter at a parliamentary election. But the 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 caste vote won the election.

ISSUE-whether the defendant is liable for wrongfully refused to take plaintiff’s vote even
though he suffered no damage?

HELD—Holt CJ said: “If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate
and maintain it, and a remedy, if he is injured in the exercise of enjoyment of it; and indeed, it is
vain thing to imagine a right without remedy; for want of a right and of a remedy is reciprocal.”

“Every injury imports damage, though it does not cost the party one farthing. For a damage not
merely pecuniary but an injury imports a damage, when a person is thereby hindered of his right.
As in an action for slanderous words though a, man does not lose a penny by reason of speaking
tem, yet he shall have an action So, if a man gives another a cuff on the ear, though it cost him
nothing, no, not so much as a little diachylon (plaster), yet e shall have his action, for it is
personal injury. So a man shall have an action against another for riding over his ground, though
it does him no damage; for it is invasion of his property, and the other has no right to come
there.”

1
Ashby v. White (1703)92 ER 126
Bhim Singh v. State of J&K 2
FACTS- In this case the petitioner was the M.L.A. of Jammu and Kashmir. While he was going
to attend the legislative assembly session, he was retained by some police officer and
deliberately prevented to attend session at legislative assemble which was met at 11September,
1985. There was also a voting session at assembly for which he was not able to vote as he was
not allowed to go. Mr. Bhim Singh was arrested and was not presented before the magistrate for
four days and was kept in some hidden place He was going to the assembly where his vote very
crucial but the person to whom he wanted to give the vote won but his right to vote was
infringed.

ISSUE-whether the detention of Mr. Bhim Singh was illegal?

HELD- In this case the petitioner was detained unlawfully when he was going to attend the
assembly session at the parliament. And he was also deprived of article 21 of the Indian
constitution and also many other fundamental rights were also deprived. As we have part iii of
the Indian constitution which gives many rights to the citizens and also there is also a personal
liberty to each and every individual to go wherever they want to go, one can restraint unlawfully.
The count awarded him 50,000/- compensation to the Bhim Singh whose fundamental rights
were infringed by the state.

Marzetti v. Williams3
FACTS-In this case the plaintiff (Mazetti) was holding an account in the bank of the defendant.
Though there was sufficient amount of money in the plaintiff’s account, but when plaintiff try to
withdraw some money via, self cheque, he was not allowed o do the same without any sufficient
reasoning by the bank officials for their act. Plaintiff filled the suit against the banker who had
refused to honor is cheque.

ISSUE-the plaintiff suffered no monetary loss then also the defendant would be liable?

HELD- even though the plaintiff suffered no monetary loss but without any reasonable ground
the plaintiff was not allowed withdrawing his money from account though there was sufficient
money in his account therefore, defendant was held liable by the court and plaintiff was
compensated for not being able to withdraw his money.

2
Bhim Singh v. State of J&K A.I.R 1986 S.C.494

3
Marzetti v. Williams
 Municipal Board of Agra v. Ashrafi Lal(1921) 44 ALL 2024
FACTS-The defendant was a qualified voter .His name was wrongly omitted from the electoral
roll and he was deprived of his right to vote. The returning officer refused to take his vote
unreasonably .But the plaintiff suffered no loss. As the candidate for whom he wanted to vote
won the election.

ISSUE: The plaintiff suffered no damage whether the defendant would be liable?

HELD: The lower court ruled in favor of defendant which was affirmed by High court holding
that the act of omission / refusal of returning officer is an infringement of defendant’s legal right
to vote for which action lies against the person depriving him his right.

1.4 Damnum Sine Injuria

Damnum sine Injuria maxim simply means damage without legal injury. In other words it can be
said that the plaintiff suffered damage but there had not been any violation or infringement of
his/her legal rights. Damage may be in the form of money, service, physical hurt, loss of health
or reputation, loss of comfort. Damage which is not coupled with an unauthorized interference
with the plaintiff’s lawful right is not actionable. If damage is caused, however substantial, to
another person is not actionable in law unless there is no violation of legal right of plaintiff .In
order to make a person liable in law there must; therefore, be present the element of injury.
When the exercise of legal right by one results in consequential harm to other person the same is
not actionable. Damnum Sine Injuria, the literal meaning of the word refers to loss or damage in
terms of money, property or any physical loss without the infringement of any legal right.. The
mere fact that due to one man’s act the other get injured, the act in itself not give cause of action,
if the act is deliberate , the party injured will have no claim in law even though the injury was
intentional , so long as the other party is exercising a legal right. Mere loss in money or money’s
worth does not itself constitute legal damage

Without Infringement Damnum Sine Injuria

No compensation
of legal right

Loss
suffered

1.5Case laws of Damnum Sine Injuria

4
Municipal Board of Agra v. Ashrafi Lal(1921) 44 ALL 202
 Gloucester Grammar School case5
Facts-In this case the defendant a school master set up a rival school to that of the plaintiff.
Large number of student flocked away from plaintiff school and due to such competition, the
plaintiff had to reduce their fees from 40 pence to 12 pence per scholar per quarter .Thus there
was monetary loss due to the act of defendant and claimed compensation from the defendant.

Issue-Whether the defendant is liable to compensate for the monetary loss suffered by plaintiff?

Held-Hankford J. said: “damnum may be abseque injuria, as if I have a mill and my neighbor
builds another mill whereby the profit of my mill is diminished, I shall have no action against
him, although I am damaged…but if a miller disturbs the water from going to my mill, or does
any nuisance of the like sort, I shall have such action as the law gives.”

Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow and Co.6

Fact-Defendants are a number of ship-owners who formed themselves into a league or
conference for the purpose of ultimately keeping the control of the tea carriage from certain
Chinese ports and for the purpose of driving Plaintiffs and other competitors from the field.
Defendants accomplished their goals by offering local shippers very low rates thus rendering it
unprofitable for Plaintiffs to send their ships there. Furthermore they also offered a 5 percent
rebate to all local shippers and agents who would deal exclusively with them with a penalty of
forfeiture of that rebate for the entire year if any straying occurred. Defendants had no personal
ill-will to the Plaintiffs, nor are any desire to harm them except such as involved in the wish and
intention to discourage by such measures the Plaintiffs form sending rival vessels to such ports.

Issue-Is there a cause of action for unfair competition when that competition complained of
consists of a price confederation that wants to control shipping of goods by lowering prices?

Held-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.

Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir 7

5
Gloucester Grammar School case (1410)Y.B. Hill 11 Hen

6
Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow and Co. (1892) A.C. 25

7
Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir A.I.R 1978 Guj.13
Fact-In this case the plaintiffs sued for a permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain
them from exhibiting the film named “Jai Santoshi Mata”. 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.

Held-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.

Action v. Blundell8
Facts- In this case the defendant s by digging a culprit intercepted the water affected the
plaintiff’s well, less than 20 years old, at a distance of about one mile.

Held- They were not liable .It was observed: “The person who owns the surface, may dig therein
and apply all that is there found to his own purposes, at his free will and pleasure, and that if the
exercise of such rights, he intercepts or drains off the water collected from underground springs
in the neighbor’s well, this inconvenience to his neighbor falls within description damnum
abseque injuria which cannot become the ground of action.”

Chesmore v. Richards9
Facts-Plaintiff, (a land owner as well as mill owner) was running a mill on his own land and for
this purpose he was using the water of the stream for a long time. The defendant dug an
extensive well in his own land with the aim of supplying water to the inhabitants of district.
Consequently, thereby, the defendant’s action cut off the underground water supply of stream
because percolation the water resulted in gathering of water in the well of the defendant. The
quality of water of stream was reduced and the mill was closed for non-availability of water as
the mill owner was not able to get the required amount of water (for his own well).

Issue –whether defendant was liable for the loss of the plaintiff?

Held –the defendant was not liable because of the principle of Damnum sine Injuria. The
defendant action did not cause violation of legal right of the plaintiff, although the plaintiff

8
Action v. Blundell (1848) 12 M. & W

9
Chesmore v. Richards (1859) 7 H.C.L. 349
suffered actual loss in money The defendant action were lawful as he has right to use his land in
whichever way he wanted and he did not infringe any right of the plaintiff.

Dickson v. Reuter’s Telegram Co.10

Facts-In this case the defendant, Telegram Company negligently delivered a telegram, meant for
somebody else, to the plaintiffs. The telegram contained an order for the shipment of barley from
Valparaiso to England. The plaintiffs believed that the message was meant for them and shipped
the goods, which the sender of the telegram refused to accept .The plaintiffs having suffered a
heavy loss sued the defendant company.

Issue-whether the defendant would be liable for negligently delivering telegram?

Held-It was held that Defendant Company owed a contractual duty, only to the sender of the
telegram. Since, they did not owe any duty to the recipient of the telegram, they were not liable.

Vishnu Datt v. Board of H.S.& Intermediate Education,U.P.11

Vishnu Datt, an intermediate student, was detained for shortage of attendance. As consequence
of the detention, he lost one year. His detention was found by the court to be illegal as the
attendance registers of the college was not maintained according to the regulation of the Board.
His action of claim to compensation for the loss was not allowed as the plaintiff’s claim did not
fall under any of the heads recognized in common law,, and moreover, the statutory provision
did not provide for any compensation in the circumstance mentioned above.

Bradford Corporation (Mayor) v. Pickles12

10
Dickson v. Reuter’s Telegram Co. (1877) 3 C.P.D.

11
Vishnu Datt v. Board of H.S.& Intermediate Education,U.P.A.I.R 1981 All. 46.

12
Bradford Corporation (Mayor) v. Pickles(1895) A.C. 587.
Facts- In this case the plaintiffs had been deriving water from the adjoining land of the defendant
which was at a higher level. The defendant sank a shaft over his own land which diminished and
discolored the water flowing to the land of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff claimed an injunction to
restrain the defendant from sinking the shaft alleging that the sole purpose of the same as to
injure the plaintiffs as they did not purchase his land at an exorbitant price.

Issue-whether the defendant would be liable for sinking the shaft over his own land because it
diminished and discoloured the water?

Held-the house of lords held that since the defendant was exercising his lawful right, he could
not be liable even though the act ,which injured the plaintiff,was done maliciously. Lord
Ashbourne said: “The plaintiffs have no cause unless they can show that they are entitled to the
flow of the water in question, and that the defendant has no right to do what he is doing.”

Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal 13

Facts-In the case, the plaintiff constructed 16 shops on the old foundations of a building. The
said construction was made without giving a notice of intention to erect a building under section
178 of the U.P. Municipalities Act and without obtaining necessary sanction required under
Section 180 of that Act. The defendants demolished this construction In an action against the
defendants to claim compensation for the demolition, the plaintiff alleged that the action of the
defendant was illegal as it was mala fide.

Held-that the defendants were not liable as no injuria 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.

Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmamma14
Facts-In this case the four defendants tries ward off the flow of water into their plot from a
stream by digging a trench as well a putting up a bund on their lands. The defendant also, acting
independently, put up bunds on her land to prevent the flow of water to her land. As a result of
the act of these five defendant, the rainwater now flowed to the plaintiff’s land causing damage
to them. The plaintiffs requested for a mandatory injunction to demolish the bunds and to fill up
the trench on the defendant’s lands, for a permanent injunction preventing them from making
bunds or making such trenches and also for damages amounting to Rs. 300 for the loss already
caused due to the flow of the water to their land.
13
Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal A.I.R 1975 All. 132.

14
Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmamma A.I.R 1958 A.P. 103
Held-The High Court held that the owner of land on or near a river has rigt to build a fence upon
his own ground to prevent damage to his ground by the overflow of water, even though as a
result of the same, the overflowing water is diverted to the neighbour’s land and cause damage.
This being a clear case of “Damnum Sine Injuria”, the defendants were not liable for the harm of
the plaintiffs.

Jethu Singh v. State of Rajasthan15

The respondent applied for a grant of NOC to set up petrol pump near retail outlet of the
petitioner.

It was held that the setting up of the petrol pump would not be against the interest of general
public. Rather, it would further the interest of general public .The Rajasthan High Court held that
as the principle of “Damnum sine Injuria”, damage resulting to the petitioner therefore, was not
actionable.

Pagadala Narasimham v. The Commissioner and Special Office 16

Facts- In this case the plaintiff‘s bus, which was not in working condition, was parked on the
road and caused obstruction to the traffic. The traffic police removed the bus with the assistance
of the municipal employees.

Held-Police officers were justified in their ac, as the same had been done in discharge of
sovereign functions, and, therefore, they could not be held liable for the same

Day v.. Browning (1878) 10 ChD 29417

Facts-In this case the plaintiff’s house was called “Ashford Lodge” for sixty years and the
adjoining house belonging to the defendant was called “Ashford Villa” for forty years. The
15
Jethu Singh v. State of Rajasthan A.I.R. 2014 Raj. 157

16
Pagadala Narasimham v. The Commissioner and Special Office A.I.R 1994 A.P. 21

17
Day v.. Browning (1878) 10 ChD 294
defendant altered the name of the house to that of the plaintiff’s house. the plaintiff alleged that
this act of the defendant had caused great inconvenience and annoyance and had materially
diminished the value of their property.

Held –the defendant had not violated any legal right of the plaintiff Hence, the defendant is not
liable for the damage suffered by the plaintiff.

Butt v. Imperial gas co, (1866) 2 LR Ch App 158 18

The plaintiff (Butt) carried on his business in a shop which had a board to indicate the materials
in which he dealt. The defendant by virtue of its statutory authority, erected a gasometer outside
the plaintiff’s shop And, the gasometer was erected and put up in such a way that it obstructed
the view of the plaintiff’s premises. The plaintiff brought an action to restrain, by injunction, the
erection of gasometer. The plaintiff contended that the actions of the imperial gas co. had let him
to suffer legal damage and he was entitled to the injunction. It was ruled that injunction cannot
be granted for the injury complained of by the plaintiff.

Anand Singh v. Ramachandra A.I.R.1953 MP28

Facts- the defendant builds two pacca walls on his land on two sides of his house as a result of
which water flowing through a lane belonging to the defendant and situated between the
defendant’s and plaintiff’s houses damaged the walls of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff had not acquired any right of easement

Held- It was held that defendant by building the wall on his land had not in any way violated the
plaintiff’s right .This was the case of “damnum sine injuria” and that, therefore, no right of
action accrued to the plaintiff.

Difference between “Injuria sine damno” and “Damnum sine

Injuria”
Injuria Sine Damno Damnum sine injuria
18
Butt v. Imperial gas co, (1866) 2 LR Ch App 158
 1. Meaning-
Injuria- legal injury or loss or infringement
of a legal right
Sine means without
Damno means damages, monetary loss
Injuria sine Damno means injury without
damage or it means infringement of absolute
private right without any actual loss or
damage.
2. Nature of action
It is actionable because there is
violation of legal right, even though
the plaintiff suffered no monetary
loss, and defendant is liable.
3.Nature of wrong
It is well accepted legal wrong and hence,
remedy is available.
4.Based on defendant’s action
The defendant act is indecent and offensive
under law.
5.compensation in the form of damages is
awarded by the court.
6. The principle of this maxim is that
whenever there is an invasion of a legal right
there creates a cause of action and the person
whose right is vested is entitled to bring an
action.
Conclusion
The conclusion of the two maxims are such that one is moral wrong for which the
law give no remedy even though they cause great loss or damage to the plaintiff
1.Meaning
Damnum-means damage in the sense of
money, loss of comfort, service health
Sine means without
Injuria means legal injury or infringement of
legal right.
Damnum sine Injuria means damage without
infringement of any legal right.
2.Nature of action
It is not actionable as there is no infringement
of legal right.
3.Nature of wrong-
It is considered as moral wrong; hence, there is
no remedy in this case.
4.Based on defendant’s action
Defendant action is correct under the law.
5.No compensation ion the form of damages
is awarded by the court
6.The principle of this maxim is that a person
exercises in such a manner within reasonable
limits which does not ground action in tort
merely because it causes damages to other
people
and on other hand is legal wrong for which the law gives legal remedy, there could
be violation of private right but without actual loss.

The main aim of the maxim Injuria Sine Damnum is that if legal right of a person
is violated then for the same law provides a remedy, therefore, it is actionable,
Irrespective of the fact that the plaintiff had suffered actual loss or not. The person
whose legal right is infringed is entitled to bring a suit against the person who has
violated the legal rights.

The main aim of the maxim Damnum Sine Injuria is that if a person had suffered
actual loss or damage without the violation or infringement of legal right then the
same is not actionable. If a person is doing act which is his/her right and because of
that act any loss or damage caused to other person then the person will not be
liable until there is no violation of legal right of other person. In these cases there is
no ground of action or no cause of action lies for a person who is acting within
reasonable limits even the other person is suffering loss.

Bibliography
Law of Torts by Dr. R.K. Bangia
Online sources
www.legalservicesindia.com

https://www.studocu.com/

https://www.srdlawnotes.com/

https://blog.ipleaders.in/damnum-injuria/

http://lawtimesjournal.in/injuria-sine-damno-damnum-sine-injuria/

https://mylegalpartner.wordpress.com/tag/damnum-sine-injuria

https://lawcorner.in/injuria-sine-damno-damnum-sine-injuria/