Injuria Sine Damno

&
Damnum Sine Injuria

Mr. Ricky Anand

Introduction.

 There are two kinds of torts:

• Those torts which are actionable per se- actionable
without the proof of any damage or loss. (Injuria Sine
Damno).
• Torts which are actionable only on proof of damage
caused by an act.
(Damnum Sine Injuria)
Contd.

1. INJURIA SINE DAMNO

 It means Injury without damage or it means an infringement of absolut
an private right without any actual loss or damage. e
 In Latin ‘Injuria’ means injury, ‘Sine’ means without and ‘Damnum’ means
damage.
 Whenever there is an infringement or invasion of legal right, the person whose legal
right was violated can approach to recover damage, though he may not have suffered
actual harm.
 Injuria sine damno falls under the first category, there is no requirement to prove
that
as a consequence of an act, the plaintiff has suffered any harm.
Contd.
• Ashby v. White[(1703) 2 Lord Raym, 938 ] plaintiff who was a qualified voter at a
parliament election, defendant who a returning officer was refused the plaintiff to
cast the vote. The plaintiff did not suffer any loss per se as the candidate in whose

favor he wanted to vote won the election but his legal right was violated. The court
held that the defendant is liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff as his legal right
to vote was violated. The defendant committed the tort.
It has been stated that when having a right he must necessarily exercise as per his
convenience but if that right gets violated at any point in time or whether there was
curtailment in the enjoyment of the right then there must be the remedy. Where there is
a right, there is a remedy. It makes sense, but if there is no remedy for the right, then it
will go in vain.
Contd.

• Marzetti v. Williams [1830] , the plaintiff was an account

holder who was having an amount in his account he went to
withdraw money by Self cheque. Though there was a sufficient
amount in his account, the defendant banker refused to pay the
plaintiff without any reason. So the plaintiff filed a suit against
the defendant banker for damage. The court held that though
the plaintiff suffered no monetary loss, the defendant is liable to
refuse the customer cheque and hence suffered tort.
Indian Case:
• Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir[ A.I.R 1986 S.C. 494 ], in this case, the
plaintiff was an M.L.A of Jammu & Kashmir parliamentary assembly. When he was
going to attend the assembly session, police arrested him wrongfully and was also
taken to the Magistrate within 24 hours. Plaintiff was deprived of his legal right as
well as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was violated.
The defendant was held liable and had to pay compensation of Rupees 50,000. The
court in the case provided exemplary damages for the same.
Damnum Sine Injuria:
• It means damage which is not attached to an unauthorized interference with
the
plaintiff’s legal right.
• Damage is caused it may or may not be substantial, to another person and is
not actionable in law unless there is also the violation of a legal right of the plaintiff.
• The most terrible harm may be inflicted on one man by another without a
legal
redress being obtainable as the doer did not infringe any legal right of the sufferer.
• Damage without injury, here the party affected suffers damage which may also be
physical but suffers no infringement of their legal rights.
• Gloucester Grammar School Case[1440]– Defendant was a teacher in the
plaintiff’s school and thereafter started his own school. Due to some dispute
defendant left the plaintiff school and started his own school. As the
defendant was very much liked by his student, children left the plaintiff
school and joined the defendant school. Plaintiff sued the defendant for
monetary loss. It was held that the defendant was not liable.
Compensation is no ground of action as no legal right is violated.
• Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow and Co. [1892], 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.
Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir AIR 1978 Guj.
13
In this case, the plaintiff pleaded before the court of law to issue a permanent injunction
order on the film named, “Jai Santoshi Maa”. According to her, the film hurt the
religious feelings of the plaintiff. It was observed that hurting of religious sentiments
did not result in any legal injury, and also that other then the plaintiff no other person
feelings were hurt. Therefore it was held that the defendant was not liable.
Contd.
• Chasemore v. Richardson, [(1859) 7 HLC 349], Plaintiff 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 Deft dug well in his own land and thereby cut off the underground water supply
of stream. Through percolation, the water gathered in the well of deft. The quantity
of water of the stream was reduced and the mill was closed for non-availability of
water. Plaintiff sued deft for damage. The court held that the Defendant was not
liable, because of the principle of Damnum sine injuria. There was no violation of
legal rights, though the actual loss in money.
Contd.
• Mayor & Co. of Bradford v. Pickles [1895] In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit
against the defendant for constructing a well on his own land thereby obstructing the
flow of water on the plaintiff’s land thus causing monetary loss to him as a result of
scarcity of wa ter for distribution to the people catered to by the organisation. The
court applied the doctrine of damnum sine injuria and concluded that the plaintiff
was not entitled to compensation as the defendant had not caused any wrongful loss
or violation of any legal right to him.
• Action v. Bundell [(1848) 12 M & W.324] In this case the plaintiff was lawfully
carrying on mining operations on his own land which unknowingly led to draining of
water kept on the plaintiff’s land. The plaintiff then filed a suit to bring about action
for damages. The court ruled that since the action of defendant was lawfully justified
and didn’t lead to the infringement of the right of the plaintiff, hence no action for
damages lay.
contd.
• Vishnu Datt v. Board of H.S. & Intermediate Education, U.P. A.I.R. 1981 All. 46,
Vishnu Datt, an intermediate student, was detained for shortage of attendance. His
detention was found by the court to be e illegal as the attendance registers of the
college were not maintained according to the regulations of the Board. As a
consequence of the detention, he lost one year. His action to claim compensation for
the loss was not allowed as the plaintiff's claim did not fall under any of the heads
recognised in common law and moreover the statutory provision did not provide for
any compensation in the circumstances mentioned above.
Contd.

• Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1975 All. 132, In this 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 defendant's demolished this construction.
In an action against the defendants to claim compensation for the demolition, the
plaintiff alleged that the action of the defendants was illegal as it was malafide. Was
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.
Thank YOU