Topic: Injuria Sine Damnum and Damnum Sine Injuria: Session Report

Session Report
Topic : Injuria Sine Damnum and Damnum Sine Injuria
I. Resource Person
Mr. S. Mohammed Azaad, Assistant Professor of Law, Tamil Nadu National Law School
University (TNNLS), Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu.
II. Contents of the session
This session started around 9:30 am and ended by 10:25 am at UG Block, TNNLS. It was an
interactive session which primarily focused on the following concepts:
1. Injuria Sine Damnum
2. Damnum Sine Injuria
A. Injuria Sine Damnum:
Injuria Sine Damnum is a legal maxim, which means that injury or loss or damage so caused
to the plaintiff without suffering any physical injury or damage. It is a Latin term, where
‘Injuria’ refers to injury ‘Sine’ refers to without and ‘Damno’ refers to a property or any
physical loss, therefore the term refers to ‘injury suffered without actual loss’. Here, in this
case, the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove the damages so suffered, he only has to prove that there
is some legal damage suffered by him, that is the action so brought is actionable per se. Like
for example, where A roams around B’s house without any justification then, in that case, there
is a violation of the legal right of B and therefore this maxim is applicable.

This maxim is well explained in the case “Ashby vs. White”, where the plaintiff was a qualified
voter at a parliamentary election, while the defendant who was a returning officer in election
wrongfully refused to take a vote of the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff didn’t suffer any loss
by such wrongful act as the candidate he wants’ to vote on the election, the legal rights of the
plaintiff were infringed and therefore the defendant was held liable.
Another leading case is of “Bhim Singh vs. State of J. & K.”, here in this case the petitioner
was an M.L.A. of J. & k. parliamentary assembly. While he was going to attend the assembly
session, police there wrongfully arrested him. He was not even presented before the magistrate
within the stipulated time. Resultant was that the person was wrongfully deprived of his legal
right to attend the meeting and moreover his fundamental right i.e. art 21 of the constitution
was also violated. It was held that the respondent was responsible, and the petitioner was liable
to receive Rs. 50,000 from the defendant.
In the case of “Marzetti V. Williams”, the plaintiff was holding an account in the bank of
defendants. Though there was a sufficient amount of money in the plaintiff’s account, but when
the plaintiff tried to withdraw some money via self-cheque, he was not allowed to do the same
without any sufficient reasoning by the bank officials for their act. Plaintiff filed a suit against
the banker who had refused to honour his cheque. Defendant was held liable by the court and
plaintiff was compensated for not being able to withdraw his money.
In “Quinn V. Leathem”, it was ruled that competition was no ground for action whatever
damage it may cause, provided nobody’s legal rights are infringed. This judgement is the
guiding principle for the cases related to losses suffered by the plaintiff due to increased
competition because of the defendant’s act(s).

In the case of “Ashrafilal V. Municipal corporation of Arga”, the plaintiff (Ashrafilal)’s name
was deleted and dropped from the voter list by the election officials, as a consequence of which
plaintiff was not able to exercise his right to vote. Plaintiff filed a case against the municipal
corporation of Agra, holding it responsible for violating its legal as well as fundamental right.
The defendant was held liable for court and compensation was granted to plaintiff.
In case of Injuria Sine Damno the loss suffered is not any physical loss but due to the violation
of legal right. Therefore, damages received by the aggrieved party is because of some kind of
loss is being suffered, and hence the amount for damages are determined just to compensate the
victim. The amount for compensation can even be rs. 5. However, where the violation of a
legal right is owing to mischievous and malicious act, the number of damages so fixed can be
increased as done in case of Bhim Singh’s case.
B. DAMNUM SINE INJURIA
Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim, which refers to injury which is being suffered by the
plaintiff but there is no violation of any legal right of a person. In such circumstances, where
there is no violation of the legal right of but the injury, or damage is being suffered by the
plaintiff, the plaintiff can’t bring an action against the other for the same, as it is not actionable
in law, unless there is some infringement of a legal right is present.
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. It is not
actionable in law even if the act so did was intentional and was done to cause injury to other
but without infringing on the legal right of the person.
In the case of “Gloucester grammar school case”, the defendant was the schoolmaster
intentionally opened the school in front of the plaintiff’s school, causing damage to him. As
due to an increase of competition the plaintiff has to reduce their fees from 40 pence to 12
pence per scholar per quarter. It was held that even though the plaintiff has suffered harm but
there was no infringement of any legal right, therefore, the defendant can’t be held liable.
In “Mogul steamship co. Mcgregor Go and Co. case”, In this case number of companies
trading in steamships, combined their hands with the intention to drove the plaintiff’s company
out of the tea-carrying company, by reducing and offering assistance at a reduced price. It was
held that the plaintiff has no cause of action as no legal right has been infringed by the other
companies.
In “Ushaben vs. Bhagyalaxmi chitra Mandir” 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 than the plaintiff no other
person feelings were hurt. Therefore it was held that the defendant was not liable.
In the case of “Acton v. Bundell”, the defendant was a landowner carrying on mining
operations on his field in the usual manner ended up draining the water from the land of
plaintiff through which the water flowed in a subterraneous course to his well. It was ruled that
the defendant need not to pay any damages to the plaintiff as the defendant was not involved in
any infringement of legal right of the plaintiff and that the defendant was in his complete right
to use the water for his mining purposes.
In the case of “Butt V. Imperial Gas Company Ltd.”, the plaintiff (Butt) carried on his
business in a shop which had a board to indicate the material in which he dealt. The defendant
(Imperial gas company), by the virtue of his 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 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 led
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.
In the case of “chasemore vs. Richards”, Plaintiff was running a mill on his own land, and for
this purpose he was using the water of the stream for long time. The defendant dug well in his
own land and thereby cut off the underground water supply of stream. Through percolation the
water of stream was reduced and the mill was closed for non- availability of water. Plaintiff
sued defendant for damages. Defendant was not held liable in this case because there was no
any violation of legal right of plaintiff.
In the case of “Day V Browning”, the plaintiff’s house was called “Ashford lodge” for sixty
years. The adjoining house belongs to defendant and was called as “Ashford villa”. The
defendant altered his house name as of the plaintiff’s house. The plaintiff alleged that act of
defendant had caused him great deal of inconvenience and annoyance. The plaintiff also
alleged that the material value of his property had been diminished because of the defendant act
of renaming his house. In the case concerned, defendant nee not to pay compensation to
plaintiff because defendant did not infringe legal right of plaintiff.
C. Method of Delivery:
The resource person’s primary teaching methodology was through lecture and discussion.
D. Teaching Aids Used:
The white board was used for writing down key points. Also, discussion basically comprised of
examples.

Topic: Injuria Sine Damnum and Damnum Sine Injuria: Session Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic: Injuria Sine Damnum and Damnum Sine Injuria: Session Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic: Injuria Sine Damnum and Damnum Sine Injuria: Session Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Session Report

Topic : Injuria Sine Damnum and Damnum Sine Injuria

University (TNNLS), Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu.

II. Contents of the session

interactive session which primarily focused on the following concepts:

1. Injuria Sine Damnum

2. Damnum Sine Injuria

A. Injuria Sine Damnum:

is a violation of the legal right of B and therefore this maxim is applicable.

to receive Rs. 50,000 from the defendant.

competition because of the defendant’s act(s).

increased as done in case of Bhim Singh’s case.

B. DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

in law, unless there is some infringement of a legal right is present.

but without infringing on the legal right of the person.

to use the water for his mining purposes.

cannot be granted for the injury complained of by the plaintiff.

any violation of legal right of plaintiff.

plaintiff because defendant did not infringe legal right of plaintiff.

D. Teaching Aids Used:

You might also like