Objectives

Explanation of damnum sine injuria as an unactionable tort.

Detailed study of damnum sine injuria through landmark cases.

Introduction

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.

 Damnun sine injuria means damages , monetary loss, to the plaintiff without violation of

legal right, not actionable because no injury to legal right.

        In Simple words,  Damnum sine injuria means damage without infringement of any
legal right. damage without injury is not actionable. Mere loss of money's worth does not of
itself constitute legal damage. There are many acts which though harmful are not wrongful in
the eyes of law, therefore do not give rise to a right of action in favour of the person who
sustains the harm. No one is to be considered a wrong doer who merely avails himself of his
legal rights, though his action may result in damage to another.

Causing of damage, however substantial, to another person is not actionable in law unless
there is also violation of a legal right of the plaintiff. This is generally so when the exercise of
legal right by one results in consequential harm to the other.

“The mere fact that a man is injured by another’s act gives 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”

Plaintiff’s right is not respected by another but where the breach of plaintiff’s right does not
cause damage, or at least not a calculable or admissible damage. A finding of damnum sine
injuria can be the basis for a finding of nominal damages. Thus in cases of damnum sine
injuria the injury is de minimis, i.e. too small to be remedied practically at the law. In such
cases the plaintiff will have a satisfaction remedy of nominal damages - which are also called
symbolic damages.

As a correlative subject, some of those cases will be considered where there may be a
technical wrong committed, but through some defect in the plaintiff’s right, title, or interest,
or through the absence of these things, the law presumes that he has no right which can be
damaged at all. These are properly cases of injuria sine damnum wrong without actual
damage, as contradistinguished from those where the plaintiff’s right to the thing injured is
complete; yet the injury is irremediable at law, because, however great the loss may be, the
law declares that no wrong has been committed. In neither case is there any remedy. It is
hoped that such an inquiry as this may prevent much useless litigation, expensive to the client
and perhaps vexatious and unremunerative to the attorney, since such cases more than any
others are taken by the attorney upon contingent compensation, where this is allowed. While
a party may consider himself aggrieved at not being provided with a remedy by the laws of
his country, it may be of considerable advantage to him to know the fact before entering into
litigation, where in the ordinary course of events defeat is inevitable, assuming that the case
is properly presented on the adverse side, and that the court is informed of the law. It is
proposed to treat the subject in its relation to the law of torts. In a broad sense, when a
promissory note becomes barred by the Statute of Limitations, or when a creditor is
compelled by a bankrupt or insolvent law to take a small percentage instead of the whole
claim, or when a verbal agreement falls within the purview of the Statute of Frauds, a person
suffers a loss and it is a loss without a remedy, but it is not what lawyers understand by the
term damnum absque injuria. It is true, as a general proposition, that a person has a right to
be secure in his life, his person, his liberty, health, reputation, and property, real and
personal;and further, that for a violation of this security, for an injury to any of these things,
he or his representatives can recover some sort of damages. We shall consider in their order
those cases of injury to these things where no damages can be recovered — where the law
imputes no wrong, and therefore gives no redress. The subject of injuries to real and personal
property includes chapters on injuries to the holders and owners of stocks and shares in
incorporated companies, coming under the general head of conversion of personal property,
and the subject of injuries to real property includes a chapter on injuries from mining
operations, and one on interference with subterranean and surface streams and percolating
waters. This is followed by a consideration of subjects, which it has been found convenient to
consider separately, viz : Injuries arising from the nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance
of public officers, the subject of injuries arising from negligence, and certain cases of
misrepresentation and deceit.
Categories of damnum absque injuria

Edward Weeks identified three categories of damnum absque injuria: the absence of legal
protection for some interests, the general limits to legal protection of interests, and the
varying extent of legal protections of interests.

Absence of legal protection for some interests

Weeks and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. identified several interests that lacked legal protection
altogether. At the time of Weeks' treatise, there was no legal protection for emotional distress
unconnected to a physical injury. Holmes also cited the example of an easement for light and
air—if a neighbour built up a tall structure that overshadowed your house, you would have no
legal remedy.

General limits to legal protection of interests

Weeks and Holmes also identified that there could be damage without legal remedy based on
some doctrines that limited liability. Contributory negligence, for example, could deprive a
plaintiff of a legal remedy against a negligent defendant.

Varying extent of legal protections of interests

Weeks and Holmes also recognized that there could be damage without legal remedy if the
damage occurred outside the scope of protection for legally recognized
interests. Riparian owners, for example, could suffer damage from their neighbors upstream
use of the water, but as long as the use was considered reasonable there would be no legal
remedy.
Difference between Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum
No. Damnum Sine Injuria
1. Meaning :
 Damnum means damage in the sense
of money, loss of comfort, service,
health etc.
Sine means without.
Injuria means legal injury or loss or
infringement of a legal right.
In short, Damnum sine injuria means
damage without infringement of any
legal right.
2. Example :
Gloucester Grammar school case,
1410 In this famous case, Court held
that, Deft not liable. Compensation is
no ground of action even though
monetary loss in caused if no legal
right is violated of anybody.
3. Damage without injury is not
actionable.
Injuria Sine Damnum
Meaning:
  Injuria means legal injury or loss
or infringement of a legal right.
   
Sine means without.
damno  means  damages, monetary
loss.
In short, Injuria sine damno means
Injury without damage or it means
infringement of an absolute private
right without any actual loss or
damage.
Example:
Ashby vs white: in this case the
plaintiff succeeded in his action in
his action even though the
defendants act did not cause any
action. The plaintiff was a
disqualified 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 vote in election in spite of
that. It was held that the defendant
was liable.
This is actionable, because there is
violation of legal right, even though
 plaintiff suffers no loss in term of
money and defendant is liable.
4. Relevant Case law : Relevant Case law:

a) Mayor of Bradford v/s Pickles 1895 a) Ashby v/s White, 1703.

b) Gloucester Grammar school case, b) Marzetti v/s Williams 1830

1410 c) Ashrafilal v/s Municipal
c) Chasemore v/s Richards 1859 corporation of Agra, 9121.

d) Marzetti v/s Williams 1830

Analysis of several landmark cases

1. Gloucester grammar school v. Independent school Gloucestershire (1410)

Facts

There , the defendant, a schoolmaster, set up a rival school to that of the plaintiffs.
Because of the competition, the plaintiffs had to reduce their fees from 40 pence to 12
pence per scholar per quarter. It was held that the plaintiffs had no remedy for the loss
thus suffered by them.

Judgements

Hankford J. said : “damnum may be abseque injuria, as if i have a mill and my

neighbour 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.”

2. Action v. Blundell (1843)

Excerpt

In 1843 the Court of Exchequer Chamber decided what became, for its time, the
leading Anglo-American case on legal rights to underground water. The ruling
 adopted in Acton v. Blundell 1 was that a landowner owns everything below the
surface of his land 2 so that, regardless of the effect on other owners, he may take and
dispose of whatever lies beneath--including underground water.

Facts

In Acton, the plaintiff's declaration alleged that he maintained a business as a cotton

spinner in the town of Wigan (about 15 miles northeast of Liverpool), that for many
years he had relied on a certain well to supply water essential to his business and that
the defendant, in the course of nearby coal mining operations, had intercepted and
diverted the underground source of the water. 3 The defendant claimed he was within
his rights in digging mining pits 12on his own land, even if he thereby caused the
underground water to drain away. 4 The trial judge, Baron Rolfe, instructed the jury in
defendant's favor and the verdict went against plaintiff. On appeal, the critical issue
was whether underground water should be subject to the rules governing water in
surface streams.

Judgement

The court conceded that landowners along a surface water course were required to
share the common supply, each one being entitled to take water in a way which would
not interfere with the equivalent rights of other owners. It was observed “The person
who owns the surface, may dig therein and apply all that is there found tohis own
purposes, at his free will and pleasure, and that if in the exercise of such rights, he
intercepts or drains off the water collected from underground springs in the
neighbour’s well, this inconvenience to his neighbour falls within description
damnum abseque injuria which cannot become the ground of action.”

3. Northern Plastics Ltd. vs. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Ors.
(20.02.1997 - SC)

Facts

Before we deal with the aforesaid question it will be necessary to note the relevant
background facts leading to the present controversy between the parties. They project
1
2
 a chequered history. The common appellant, Northern Plastics Ltd., which will
hereinafter be referred to as the appellant' for the sake for convenience, is said to have
obtained Small Scale Industries Registration (SSI Registration) on 24th August 1985
for slitting and confectioning of jumbo rolls of various types of films. The said
registration, according to the appellant, was obtained under the Industries
(Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 ('IDR Act for short). A notification was
issued by the competent authority under the said Act on 18th July 1986 effectively
taking away the exemption from requirement of licence in respect of Item 20 of 1st
Schedule to the IDR Act thus making it obligatory for owner of industrial undertaking
to have licence within six months. It is the case of the appellant that although it was
not the owner of industrial undertaking as defined by the IDR Act, under a mistaken
belief it applied for COB licence on 8th December 1986. On 7th July 1988 a
notification was issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under
Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act exempting jumbo rolls of graphic art films
and jumbo rolls of photographic colour paper, of width 1 metre or more of length 600
metres or more, falling within Chapter 37 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff
Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), when imported into India, from so much of that portion of the
duty of customs leviable thereon under the said First Schedule as was in excess of the
amount calculated at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem, subject to the following
conditions:

the importer undertakes conversion of the said jumbo rolls by slitting or confectioning
into finished products;

the importer holds an industrial licence under the Industries (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951), for slitting and confectioning of photo-sensitised
materials from jumbo rolls.

Judgements

 S.B. Majumdar.J, held that “Juridically, harm of this description is

called damnum sine injuria, the term injuria being here used in its true sence of an
act contrary to law [Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn. by Fitzgerald, p.357, para
85]. The reason why the law suffers a person knowingly to inflict harm of this
description on another, without holding him accountable for it, is that such harm done
to an individual is a gain to society at large.”34

3
Writ Petition No.3023 of 1989
4
4. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed

Facts

Respondents 1 and 2 are owners of a site, bearing Survey No. 98 in the town of
Mehmadabad. They made an application under Rule 3 of the Rules to the District
Magistrate, Kaira, for the grant of a Certificate that there was no objection to the
location of a cinema theatre at this site. The District Magistrate then notified in the
prescribed Form, the substance of the application by publication in newspapers,
inviting objections to the grant of a No-objection Certificate. In response thereto,
several persons lodged objections, but the appellants, who are the proprietors of a
cinema house, situated on Station Road, Mehmadabad, were not among those
objectors. Some of the objections were that a Muslim graveyard, a Durgah, a compost
depot, a school and public latrines were situated in the vicinity of the proposed site.
the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, or any other
appropriate writ or order directing the Respondents to treat the No-objection
Certificate granted to Respondents 1 and 2 as illegal, void and ineffectual They
further asked for an injunction restraining Respondents 1 and 2 from utilising the
certificate for the purpose of building a cinema theatre.

Judgement

The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no right
vested in the appellant had been infringed, or prejudiced or adversely affected as a
direct consequence of the order impugned by him, and as such, he was not an
aggrieved person' having a locus standi in the matter.5

5
Civil Appeal No. 2035 of 1971.
5. Ushaben Navinchandra Trivedi v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir 

Facts

The plaintiffs appellants filed Civil Suit claiming a permanent injunction against the
defendants respondents restraining them from exhibiting the cinematographic picture
named "Jai Santoshl Maa". Defendant-respondent No. 1 is a name and style of
business carried on by defendant-respondent No. 2, who had produced the said movie.
Defendant-respondent No. 3 is the Director of the movie and defendant respondent
No. 4 had written the Them thereof Defendant-respondent No. 5 is the distributor and
defendants-respondents Nos. 6 to 14 are the theatres wherein the aforesaid movie was
exhibited in the City of Ahmedabad After filing of the suit the plaintiffs to* out a
notice of motion for a temporary injunction restraining the exhibition of the movie by
the defendants.

Judgement

The suit had been filed by the plaintiffs with mala fide intention and to harass the
defendants. The said film discloses in the very beginning that the entire film is
imaginary and it would he fallacy to appreciate the said film with reference to
mythological books. The defendants state that it is usual and normal to show in
religious and mythological films, certain incidents which go to show that Gods or
Goddesses are to test the –sincerity of the devotee and that end, the devotee is made to
suffer misery and humiliation. In The film the three Goddess are depicted to be saying
that they tried to test the security of Satyavati in her devotion to Santoshi Mata and
this itself indicates Ought there was no malice as alleged by plaintiffs. After hearing
both the parties the learned City Civil Judge discharged the rule on the ground that the
subject-matter of the suit did not involve any civil right of the plaintiffs and
consequently did not far under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. In order to
complete the judgment the learned trial Judge considered the motion on merits and
 came to the conclusion that the title of the movie and the advertising literature thereof
Cleary indicated that the mode was religious and mythological and it was natural that
any person interested in mythology and when attracted and sm the picture, it would
hurt his religious belief. It is this order refusing the temporary injunction which is
challenged in this appeal.  The result, therefore, is that this appeal of the plaintiffs is
dismissed and the impugned order of the learned trial Judge is confirmed. There shall
be no order as to costs of this appeal.6

6. Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmamma

Facts

Four defendants tried to ward off the flow of water into their plot from a stream by
digging a trench as well as putting up a bund on their lands. The fifth 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 defendants, 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 defendants’ 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.

Judgement

The High Court held that the owner of land on or near a river has a right to build a
fence upon his own ground to prevent damage to his ground to prevent damage to his
ground by the overflow of river, even though as a result of the same, the overflowing
water is diverted to the neighbour’s land and causes damage. This being a clear case
of damnum sine injuria, the defendants were not liable for the harm to the plaintiffs.
The law permits the protection of one’s property from apprehended danger by
preventing the entrance of flood-water to one’s land even though such an actcauses
damage to neighbours. But if the flood-water has already entered one’s land, the law
does not permit him to cast it upon adjoining land.
7

6
AIR 1978 Guj 13, (1977) GLR 424
7
A.I.R. 1958 A.P. 103; Lagan Navigation Co. v. Lamberg Bleaching Dyeing and Finishing Co, (1927) A.C. 226