TWO MAXIMS

&nbsp;

TERMS
USED IN TWO MAXIMS:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Damnum-it
means damage or loss of physical or non physical property for example-loss of
,money ,property, comfort, health etc. this damage is suffered by the
plaintiff.<a target="" rel="">[1]</a>"Damage in term of
substantial loss of money, comfort, health, service, etc. ".

Injuria-it
means breach of legal duty which was fixed by the law if any act or omission is
done by the defendant and it caused legal injury to the plaintiff then only it
will be consider a case of tort if legal injury is&nbsp; not present in the case then it will not be
consider a case of tort.

Sine-there
is the simple meaning of sine is "without".

HERE
ARE THE TWO MAXIMS:

1.
DAMNUM SINE
INJURIA -<a target="" rel="">[2]</a>"this
maxim means damage or loss without infringement of legal right .Thus no action
lies for mere damage or loss however substantial caused by an act which does
not infringe some legal right of the plaintiff.<a target="" rel="">[3]</a>It means damage which is
not coupled with an unauthorized interference with the plaintiff's lawful right
. Causing of damage however substantial to another person is not actionable in
law unless there is also violation of legal right by one result in consequential
harm to the other. The mere fact that a man is injured by another's act given
in itself no cause of action ; if the act is deliberate the party injured will
have no claim in law even though the injury is intentional so long as the other
party is exercising a legal right".

In simple words
"Damnum Sine Injuria" means damage or loss of the plaintiff's
property or body in the form of injury, or property loss etc. without breach of
legal duty or legal rights means there is damage but violation of legal rights
is missing in this maxim .

Because there are three
essential elements of tort. So it will not be consider a case of tort because
there is one essential element "Violations" of legal right " is
missing&nbsp; in this maxim .

REMEDY-This
maxim will not be consider a case of TORT because there is one essential
element of TORT is missing so plaintiff will not get any remedy under this
maxim. 

&nbsp;

 


&nbsp;

Some
cases on "Damnum Sine Injuria":

Gloucester
Grammar School<a target="" rel="">[4]</a>
-There
the defendant a schoolmaster set up rival school to that of the plaintiff
.Because of the competition the plaintiff had to reduce their fee from 40 pence
to 12 pence per scholar per quarter . It was held that the plaintiff had no
remedy for the loss thus suffered by them. Hank ford J. said :Damnum may be obsequy
Injuria as if&nbsp; I have a mill and my neighbor
builds another mill whereby the profit of my mill is dismissed. I shall have no
action against him although I am damaged .....but if a miller&nbsp; 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".

Mayor
of Bradford v. Pickles-<a target="" rel="">[5]</a>The
fact were that the defendant was annoyed when the Bradford Corporation refused
to purchase his land in connected with the scheme of water supply for the
inhabitants&nbsp; of the town. In&nbsp; revenge&nbsp;
the defendant sank a shaft on his own land which diminished and discolored
the underground water flowing to the land of plaintiff's i.e.., the Corporation
used the defendant on the ground that contention of the plaintiff ,the House of
lords held that the act done by the defendant upon his own land was not
actionable when he was within his legal eights even though his motive was to
prejudice his neighbor Lord Mac Nathten stated that "the real answer to
claim of the Corporation is that in such a case motives are immaterial .It is
the act not the motive for the act that must be regarded. If the act apart from
motive gives rise merely to damage without legal injury the motive however
reprehensible it may be will not supply that element."&nbsp; 

Anand
Singh v. Ram Chandra<a target="" rel="">[6]</a>-The
fact were that the defendant built a wall on his land as a result of which
water in between the plaintiff 's house and the defendant's house began to flow
through a lane which belonged to the defendant and it damaged the wall of the
plaintiff's house. The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant and
claimed Rs. 100 as damages. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the
plaintiff had no cause of action as the plaintiff's right .It was observed by
the court that "the plaintiff had not got&nbsp;
any easementary right and is not entitled to court that "the
plaintiff had not got any easementary right and is not entitled to restrain the
defendant from building walls on his own land .This is the case of "Damnum
Sine Injuria "... 

 


&nbsp;

2.INJURIA
SINE DAMNUM-As we discussed in the introduction the literal
meaning of this maxim is violation of legal right without any injury. Now we
will discuss this maxim briefly

<a target="" rel="">[7]</a>This
maxim means infringement of private legal&nbsp;
right without damage or loss .In such a case the person whose right has
been infringed is entitled to bring an action and may recover damages from the
person who has violated his right .In other words whenever there is an infringement
of private legal right the person in whom the legal right is violated is
entitled to bring an action and may recover damages although he has suffered no
actual loss or harm .

In simple words we can
understand this is the reverse case of Damnum Sine Injuria. In this maxim there
is no loss to the property or body to the plaintiff but violation of legal
right of the plaintiff's'&nbsp; is done by the
wrongful act or omission by the defendant.

<a target="" rel="">[8]</a> Injuria
sine Damnum means violation of legal right without causing any harm loss or
damage to the plaintiff .There are two kind of torts :

Firstly those torts which
are actionable "per se", actionable without the proof of any damage
or loss .For instant trespass to land is actionable even though no damage has
been caused as a result of the trespass .

Secondly the torts which
are actionable only on the proof of some damage caused by an act.&nbsp; Injuria Sine Damnum covers the first of the above
stated cases .In such cases there is no need to prove that a consequence of a
act the plaintiff has suffered any harm .For legal action the only thing which
has to be proved is that the plaintiff's legal right has been violated means
there is "Injuria". "<a target="" rel="">[9]</a>This is just opposite of
maxim Damnum sine injuria.It means there is breach or infringement of private
legal right but no damage has been done ". 

REMEDY-Under
this maxim remedy is available to the plaintiff .Remedy can be in the form of
(Injunction,componsation,self help,restitution of property).Because this maxim
fulfill all the essential elemend of tort that is the reason remedy is
available in&nbsp; this maxim 

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

 


&nbsp;

SAOME
CASES ON"Injuria Sine Damnum":

<a target="" rel="">[10]</a>Bhim Singh v. State of J. and K.-an M.L.A of&nbsp; J and K Assembly was wrongfully detained by
the police while he was going to attend the assembly session. He was not
produced before the Magistrate within requisite period. As a consequence of
this the member was deprived of his contribution right to personal liberty
guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution. By the time the petition was
decided by the Supreme Court, Bhim Singh had been released but by way of
consequential relief exemplary damages amounting to Rs. 50000 were awarded him 

&nbsp;

<a target="" rel="">[11]</a>Ashnby v. white –is a leading case
explaining the maxim injuria sine damnum. In this case the plaintiff succeeded
in his action even though the defendants act did any causes any damage. The
plaintiff was a qualified voter at a Parliament election&nbsp; 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 vote won the election in
spite of that it was held that the defendant was liable .

&nbsp;

<a target="" rel="">[12]</a>The principle
stated in Abhay v. White has been followed in India in toto in the case of Kali
Kishan v. Jadoo Lal Mullick&nbsp;&nbsp; .

The plaintiff and defendant were
proprietors of opposite banks of water channel. The plaintiff sued the
defendant&nbsp; for an injunction for the
demolition of a wall which the defendant had built for the protection of his
own land but High court of Calcutta held that although no actual loss had
occurred to the plaintiff yet he was entitled to a decree&nbsp; as he had succeeded in showing that some
damage might hereafter arise from an encroachment , on the plaintiff but to the
Govt. and that as he had neither claimed nor proved that he was entitled to
flow water&nbsp; as it had been
accustomed&nbsp; to flow&nbsp; or had failed to show either Damnum &nbsp;or
injuria and therefore had no right of action . T heir Lordship observed, “There
may be where a right is interfered with injuria sine damno is sufficient for an
action can be maintained where there is neither damnum non injuria”

&nbsp;

<a target="" rel="">[13]</a>. A case from
Allahabad High Court provides another suitable illustration.&nbsp; Plaintiff (Asharfi Lal ) was entitled to be entered as an elector upon the
electoral roll. His name was wrongfully omitted from the electoral roll and the
election roll and such he was deprived of his right to voe .&nbsp; On an action by the plaintiff it was held by
the court that if anyt person entitled to be on the electoral roll of any
constituency is omitted from such roll so as to be deprived of his right to
vote and so as to give the returning officer an adequate ground for refusing
him the right refusal or omission from the roll as the case may be turn out on
investigation a person depriving him of his right.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

 


&nbsp;

maxims

Useful links

Company

Information

Content Writers

Freelancers

Freelance Jobs

Online Jobs

Designers

Developers

Translations