Name- Shashank pandey

Batch-1st semester

Subject-law of tort

Topic-Meaning and idea of damnum sine injuria

Submitted to-Ms. Priti dayal

Submitted by-Shashank pandey
Contents-

Topic…………………………………………………Page No.

Acknoledgment……………………..………………..3

Declaration…………………………………….……..4

Introduction………………………………………….5

Meaning damnum sine injuria………………..…..…6

Famous case laws……………………………..……...7

Idea of damnum sine injuria……………..……….....8

Indian case laws……………………………………….8

Comparision to other countries…………….……….11

Conclusion……………………………………………13

Bibliograpgy………………………………………….14
Acknoledgment-

This is an assignment on Damnum sine injuria, which I was abel to

complete because of help of my teacher Ms. Priti dayal. She has
been kind in helping us choose our project topics for a subject as
sensitive as Law of tort.Priti mam has been very helpful in making
us understand what law of torts and what Damnum sine injuria is.

I would utilize this opportunity to thank all those who have played a
part in completion of this project. Special thanks to my parents for
their ever ending support.
Declaration-

I hereby declare that this assignment is plagiarism free

and has been duly completed with the use of available
resources. I also declare that all the authorities cited in
this Assignment are duly acknowledged.
Intoroduction-

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.
Idea OF DAMNUM SINE INJURIA
Presentation

The law of misdeeds is an assortment of the multitude of conditions wherein court gives a cure via
damages, for legitimately uncalled-for mischief or injury done by to each other individual. There
are three components which should be demonstrated prior to comprising a misdeed:-

1.There must be a demonstration or exclusion with respect to the defendant.

2.That act or oversight should be infringing upon a legitimate right vested in the plaintiff.

3.The improper act or oversight along these lines done by the defendant is of such a nature to offer
ascent to a legitimate cure.

MEANING OF LATIN MAXIM DAMNUM SINE INJURIA -

Meaning -

Damnum means = Damage in the sense of money, Loss of comfort , service , health etc.

Sine means = Without

Injuria means = Infringement of a legal right / injury to legal right.

Damnum sine Injuria is a lawful adage which alludes to as damages without injury or damages in
which there is no encroachment of any lawful right which are vested with the plaintiff. Since no
legitimate right has been encroached so no activity lies in the instances of damnum sine injuria. The
overall guideline on which this proverb depends on is that in the event that one activities his normal
or common rights, inside sensible cutoff points, and without encroaching other's legitimate right;
such an activity doesn't offer ascent to an activity in misdeed for that other individual. Damages
can be in any structure either as any generous mischief or misfortune experienced regard to the
cash, comfort, wellbeing, and so forth

It is a suggested standard in law that there are no solutions for any ethical wrongs, except if and
until any lawful right has been encroached. Regardless of whether the demonstration or exclusion
such done by the defendant was deliberate, the Court won't give any damages to the plaintiff.
SOME FAMOUS CASE LAWS RELATING TO THE MAXIM :
1. Mayor and Co. of Bradford versus Pickles (1895) in which the company of Bradford
documented a suit against the defendant charging that the demonstration of defendant by
diving a well in the abutting land claimed by the defendant has cut the underground flexibly
of water in the partnership's well consequently causing them financial misfortunes since
there was no sufficient gracefully of water to release for individuals living under the ward of
the enterprise. It was held that the defendant isn't obligated since they had not abused any
legitimate right of the plaintiff.

2.
Gloucester Grammar School (1410) in which a schoolmaster, set-up an adversary school to that of
the plaintiff and since on account of the opposition the plaintiff needed to decrease their expenses
from 40 pence to 12 pence per quarter. Along these lines guaranteed for pay from the defendants
for the misfortunes endured. It was held that the plaintiff had no solution for the misfortunes
endured, since the demonstration however ethically wrong has not abused any legitimate right of
the plaintiff.

3) Chasemore v/s Richards 1859

Fact -

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 stream was reduced and the mill was closed for non availability of water. Plaintiff sued
deft for damage.It was held Deft. Not liable, because of principle of Damnum sine injuria. No
violation of legal right, though actual loss in money.

4.
Mogul Steamship Co. Vs. McGregor Gow and Co.[4]
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.

Consequently, The court assumes in situations where the legitimate right has been encroached that
damages must be granted, however in situations where no lawful right has been encroached, the
saying Damnum sine Injuria applies and no cures are accessible for the equivalent. Along these
lines, it tends to be appropriately said that a demonstration which is legitimately or lawfully done,
without carelessness, and in the activity of a lawful right, such damages as goes to another
subsequently is damage without injury.
Reference - https://blog.ipleaders.in/damnum-injuria/
Idea OF DAMNUM SINE INJURIA IN INDIA :-
The law of Torts in India came through England. After the Norman Conquest, French turned into
the communicated in language in England's legal executive and subsequently a significant number
of the English law's specialized terms owe their beginning to French and misdeed is one of them.
The term 'misdeed' depends on the idea that there are sure rights for everybody in the public
arena. The reason for this misdeed law was to uphold rights and obligations.

The possibility of damnum sine INJURIA has been continued in Indian legal framework from the
hour of the Britishers.

The law of misdeeds in India is an assemblage of law that addresses and gives solutions for non-
legally binding demonstrations of common bad behaviors. An individual enduring legitimate
damage might have the option to utilize misdeed law to get remuneration for those wounds from
somebody who is lawfully mindful or obligated. The law of Torts in India is a generally new
precedent-based law improvement enhanced by systematizing rules including resolutions
administering damages. While India by and large follows the UK approach, there are sure
contrasts which may demonstrate legal activism, thus making discussion.

INDIAN CASE LAWS BASED ON THE MAXIM:-

1 . In Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmamma[5], defendants attempted to prevent the progression of
water from entering their field and medication a channel for that reason. The fifth defendant
likewise autonomously put bunds on her property to forestall stream of water. As a result, the
plaintiff's property got overflowed with the water that entered her field. The Andhra Pradesh High
Court held that there was no lawful wrong on piece of the defendants to have burrowed a channel
on their fields.This was viewed as an away from of Damnum Sine Injuria and the defendants were
held not at risk for the damage caused to the plaintiff.

Hence, it must be noticed that when one ensures one's property by forestalling rising water from
entering the fields, it is an instance of Damnum Sine Injuria, in any case if the rising water has just
entered the field, he isn't allowed to move it to the neighboring area.

2. Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Leading body of High school and Intermediate Examination AIR 1981
All 46:

The plaintiff (Vishnu Dutt Sharma) was an understudy who was illegitimately kept by the
Principal, based on misjudgment of the pertinent guidelines, on the record of deficiency of
participation. The plaintiff documented a suit and contended that he was qualified for damages as
he had endured deficiency of one year. In any case, the court decided that the plaintiff can't
guarantee pay as misinterpretation of guidelines doesn't add up to a misdeed.
3. Ushaben vs. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir[5]
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.

4. Smt Champa devi v/s Megh singh (2013) -

The relevant facts as pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the 1st
floor of property bearing no.2558, Punjabi Basti, Subzi Mandi, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
"the suit property") which she purchased on 12.10.2007. It is stated that defendant is owner in
Champa Devi v. Megh Singh Suit No. 577/08 Page No:1/9 possession of the 2nd floor of this suit
property.
It is further stated that with intention of harassing the plaintiff, the defendant partly covered the
ventilator which is in the ceiling of the property of the plaintiff, without the permission and consent
of the plaintiff. The ventilator is shown in red colour in the site plan filed alongwith the plaint. It is
stated that the plaintiff requested the defendant to remove the cover from the ventilator. However,
the defendant did not accede to the request of the plaintiff. Complaint was also filed to the police.
However, no action was taken. Legal notice dated 27.8.2008 was also served upon the defendant. To
this notice, the defendant sent a false and frivolous reply.
It is further stated that the defendant has threatened the plaintiff that he will cover the entire
ventilator. It is stated that if the defendant does that, the plaintiff shall be deprived of natural light
and air in her property. It shall also cause suffocation.Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present
suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the cover from the aforementioned
ventilator. It has further been prayed that the defendant be restrained from covering the remaining
part of the ventilator.
Version of Defendant -
It is mentioned in the written statement that the suit property was constructed by a builder from
whom the plaintiff purchased 1st floor of the suit property and defendant purchased 2nd floor of
the suit property, on the same day i.e. 12.10.2007.Champa Devi v. Megh Singh Suit No. 577/08 Page
No:2/9.It is stated that when the defendant purchased the 2nd floor of the suit property, it was only
a roof and nothing was built on it. It is stated that the defendant built the 2nd floor on his own and
during construction of the same, at the request of the plaintiff, the defendant kept the ventilator
open. It is stated that the defendant agreed to keep the ventilator open only till construction of the
2nd floor and as gesture of goodwill towards a neighbour. It is stated that this does not create a
right in favour of plaintiff for keeping the ventilator open for eternity. It is further stated that when
the construction got completed, the defendant wanted to cover the ventilator but the plaintiff did
not let him do so. It is stated that the area of 2nd floor is only 40 sq. yards. In such a small area, the
defendant is compelled to leave open the ventilator. This makes the entire 2nd floor redundant. It is
further mentioned that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff clearly states that 1st floor
of the suit property is transferred to her without roof rights. It is further stated that builder of the
suit property is a necessary party to the suit as he is the best person to state whether the ventilator
was made permanently or temporarily. It is further stated that the builder can only tell whether the
2nd floor was sold to the defendant on the condition that the ventilator is to be kept open. It is
stated that since the builder has not been made a party in the present suit, same is liable to be
dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. It is further stated that the ladies in the family of the
defendant wear sarees and the ventilator is between the bedroom and kitchen. Ladies have to cross
the ventilator with embarrassment. It is stated that the plaintiff has no right to have the ventilator
opened. Therefore, the suit is Champa Devi v. Megh Singh Suit No. 577/08 Page No:3/9 liable to be
dismissed.

Held-
I am of the considered opinion, even if what the defendant has Champa Devi v. Megh Singh Suit
No. 577/08 Page No:6/9 stated is correct, the builder of the suit property may at best be a witness in
the case and not a party to it. Reliance is place upon the decision of devision bench of Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi passed in case of Hema Khattar & Anr. v. Shiv Khera, 194 (2012) DLT 741 (DV). It
was held in this case that law draws distinction between evidence and cause of action. In these
circumstances, the builder of the suit property is not a necessary party to the present case. This
issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree to mandatory injunction directing the defendant to
remove the coverage of the ventilator above lobby of the plaintiff in property no.2558, Pujabi Basti,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction restraining the
defendant from covering ventilator of the plaintiff in property no.2558, Punjabi Basti, Subzi Mandi,
Delhi? OPP
Onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. The undisputed facts of the case are that the
plaintiff bought the 1st floor of the suit property and the defendant bought the 2nd floor of the suit
property from the same person and on the same date. There is a ventilator/jaal on the ceiling of the
1st floor of the suit property which opens in the 2nd floor. The ventilator/ jaal has been shown in
red colour in the site plan proved by the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/8. The defendant has partly covered
his ventilator/jaal.
The present suit has been filed seeking direction to be given to the defendant that the cover from
the jaal be removed. It has further been prayed that the defendant be restrained from covering rest
of the jaal.
It has been averred by the plaintiff that if the jaal is covered, the plaintiff and her family shall be
deprived of natural light and air in her Champa Devi v. Megh Singh Suit No. 577/08 Page No:7/9
property. It has also been stated that there shall be suffocation in the property.
From the site plan filed and proved by the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/8, it is evident that the suit property
is open from one side. This has also been the testimony of the defendant. Even from the
photographs Mark A, Ex.PW1/X, Ex.PW1/Y & Ex.PW1/Z, it is evident that there is enough space
on the sides of the 1st floor of the suit property. Therefore, it is apparent that there shall be
ventilation, availability of air and light in the property of the plaintiff. If it was not have so, the
plaintiff would not have herself covered the jaal which she has admitted doing during her cross-
examination, even though, for the reason that children play there.
However, even if the plaintiff is right in stating that there is no ventilation, light or air in her
property since the defendant has covered the jaal, it would at best be a case of injuria sine
damnum.
The defendant has been sold the 2nd floor of the suit property. He should be permitted to enjoy it
fully. The sale deed by which the plaintiff has been sold the 1st floor of the suit property
categorically states that the 1st floor has been sold without roof rights. The sale deed does not
prescribe that the jaal shall be made available to the plaintiff permanently. Even the sale deed by
which the 2nd floor of the suit property has been sold to the defendant has not qualified the right of
the defendant to enjoy and use the 2nd floor in whatever way or manner he deems fit. He has not
been restrained from covering the jaal. The entire 2nd floor has been sold to him and he can use it
as he pleases. The plaintiff has failed to show a legal right in her favour by which Champa Devi v.
Megh Singh Suit No. 577/08 Page No:8/9 she is entitled to restrain the defendant from carrying out
any changes in his own property. The plaintiff has not proved or even claimed any easmentary
right of receiving sun light and air from the portion of the jaal. In these circumstances, I am of the
opinion that the defendant cannot be directed to remove the cover from the jaal nor can he be
restrained from covering the remaining portion of the jaal. These issues are accordingly against the
plaintiff and in favour of defendant.

Relief In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the suit is dismissed.

Reference -
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122331331/

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

COMPARISON TO OTHER COUNTRIES - :

In the international comparison of modern tort law, common law jurisdictions based upon English
tort law have foundational differences from civil law jurisdiction, which may be based on the
Roman concept of delict. Even among common law countries, however, significant differences exist.
For example, in England legal fees of the winner are paid by the loser (the English rule versus the
American rule of attorney fees). Common law systems include United States tort law, Australian
tort law, Canadian tort law, Irish tort law, and Scots Law of Delict. The Jewish law of rabbinic
damages is another example although tort in Israeli law is technically similar to English law as it
was enacted by British Mandate of Palestine authorities in 1944 and took effect in 1947. There is
more apparent split between the Commonwealth countries (principally England, Canada and
Australia) and the United States.

The United States has been perceived as particularly prone to filing tort lawsuits even relative to
other common law countries, although this perception has been criticized and debated.As of 1987,
class actions were relatively uncommon outside of the United States. As of 1987, English law was
less generous to the plaintiff in the following ways: contingent fee arrangements were restricted,
English judges tried more decisions and set damages rather than juries, wrongful death lawsuits
were relatively restricted, punitive damages were relatively unavailable, the collateral source rule
was restricted, and strict liability, such as for product liability, was relatively unavailable.England's
welfare state, such as free healthcare through National Health Service, may limit lawsuits. On the
other hand, as of 1987 England had no workers compensation system and lawsuits due to
workplace injuries were relatively common and facilitated by trade unions, whereas in the United
States the system of workers' compensation insurance provides for compensation an employee who
is injured at work even if the employee was at fault for the injury, but otherwise prohibits most
lawsuits against the employer (although lawsuits against third parties who are responsible for the
injury, such as the manufacturer of a defective ladder on which the employee was injured) are
permitted.The United States also has faced a rise in no-fault insurance for automobile liability in
several states. In England, ombudsmen may also take cases which could alternatively become tort
lawsuits.

When comparing Australia and the United States, Australia's tort law is similarly state law;
however, there is a federal common law for torts unlike the United States. The influence of United
States law on Australia has been limited. However, United States law may have influenced
Australia's development of strict liability claims for products indirectly through legislation affected
by European Union, and in the 1990s class actions were introduced in Australia.Australia has
universal healthcare and 'welfare state' systems which relieve injured persons (and others) from
having to pay their medical expenses and also limit lawsuits.In New Zealand, a no-fault accident
compensation system has limited the development of personal injury tort law.In certain instances,
different jurisdictions' law may apply to a tort, in which case rules have developed for which law to
apply. This occurs particularly in the United States, where each of the 50 states may have different
state laws, but also may occur in other countries with a federal system of states, or internationally.
Refrence –

http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=plr
CONCLUSION-
Dammam sine injuria is a Latin maxim which simply means
damage without any form of legal injury and since no legal
rights of any form has been infringed of the plaintiff by the
defendant no compensation is been provided to the
plaintiff .damage could be of any form such as economic loss,
physical injury or emotional injury. There are also many
cases around the world related to the maxim which can be
used for the study of this maxim. this idea of Damnum sine
injuria a Latin maxim has been brought in India by the
British after the Norman conquest.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sources-
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=plr
http://lawtimesjournal.in/injuria-sine-damno-damnum-sine-injuria/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122331331/