B. Damnum sine Injuria: In this case, the plaintiff suffers loss of damage without any injury to his legal right. Hence, the plaintiff °s suit is not actionable. The term ‘Damnum’ means damage: Physical, mental or otherwise. The term ‘sine’ means ‘without’ or ‘in the absence of’. The term ‘injuria’ means infringement of a Legal right. The above phrase means “Damage without the infringement of legal right”. An act that comes within the meaning of this maxim is not regarded as a ‘tort’ and the suit is not maintainable. For instance : ‘A’ opens a fancy shop opposite to B’s fancy shop. and the sales in B’s shop get diminished causing loss to B. If B sues A, it is not actionable. Relevant Case Law: .__ 1. Gloucestor Grammar School Case (1410, Y.B., 11): ee a = 7_ In this case, the defendant started a school and plaintiff's schow “a fee from students. As a result, the-students in ved to defendant’s school. Due to competition, theplaintiffs had to reduce their fees from 40 pence to 12 pence per quarter. Consequently, the plaintiff suffered loss and sued the defendant. Hankford J. held that plaintiff’s suit is not actionable on the ground that his legal right is not infringed by the defendant. (If, this case is asked in Part C, Case Comment write the principle laid down and judgment as follows). Principle laid down: The principle laid down in the instant case is “every person has a right to carry on his trade or profession in - competition with others and if as a result of a healthy business competition, his rival suffers a loss, then, he is not entitled to recover any compensation”. Here, the defendant by setting up his school near the plaintiff’s school had exercised his legal right and therefore, no action can lie against him. Judgment: The Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any remedy since the defendant in setting up a school exercised his legal right without infringing the plaintiff’s legal right. Hankford J., while delivering the judgment observed, “if I have a mill and my neighbour paites another mill thereby the profit of my mill is diminished, I shall je action against him, although I am damaged ... but if a miller likes s the water from going to my mill, or does any nuisance of the ort, I shall have such action as the law gives”.— nearby and started their work. The defendant for not purchasing thei, site. maliciously dug deep wells on their land. As a result, Plaintiff’; works were dislocated as the water got diminished and discoloured. The plaintiff Municipal Corporation sued the defendant alleging that the defendant was causing inconvenience maliciously for not having purchased their site at a price demanded by him and requested the Court to issue injunction restraining defendant’s act. Judgment: The House of Lords held that the plaintiff’s suit was not actionable and the defendant could not be held liable on the ground that the defendant was exercising his lawful right though it was 2 Principle laid down: The principle laid down in the instant case was, “where a defendant exercises his legal right, though it is motivated by malice, and such exercise of his legal right results in harm, injury oF Joss to the plaintiff, the defendant is not held liable.”P. Seetharamaiak vs, Mahalakshmam A.P. 103): Mahalakshmamma, one of the five defendants was sued for digging a trench and putting up bund on her land to prevent rain water from a stream. As a result the water flowed towards the plaintiff's land causing damage. The plaintiff pleaded fora mandatory injunction to demolish the bund and to fill up the trench on defendant's lands, and also claimed Rs. 300/- towards damages. Held that defendants were not liable on the ground that it was a clear case of damnum sine injuria. In Anand Singh v. Ramachand [AIR 196 MP 28] the defendant built two pacca walls on his land on two sides of his house. Due to this, water flowing through a lane belonging to the defendant and situated between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s houses damaged the walls of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had not acquired any right of easement. It was held that the defendant by building the walls on his land had not violated the plaintiff's tight. This was held to be a case of damnum sine injuria and therefore no right of action accrued to the plaintiff. Ih Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal {AIR 1975 All. 132], A auntiff constructed a building without obtaining proper aaa an the Town Area Committee. The Town Area Committee ae defen demolished the construction. In an action ai hae the aa to claim compensation for the demolition, it was ase ifape endants were not liable as no ‘injuria could be ce an Bh "Son constructs a building illegally, the demolition of See rs ne unicipal authorities would not amount to causing ‘injuria’ to ®t of property, ma, 1958 (AIR 1958 the p|A. Injuria sine damno: If the plaintiff suffers injury to his leg right, he will have a cause of action to sue the defendant even thoug he has not suffered any loss or damage. The term ‘/njuria’ means infringement or violation of a legal right. The term ‘Sine’ means without or in the absence of. The term ‘Damno’ means damage physical, mental or otherwise.Relevant leading cases on this point are: Ashby vs. White, (1702) 2Ld Raym. 938. Facts of the case: In this case, the plaintiff was a legally qualified voter. The defendant, a Returning Officer, maliciously prevented the plaintiff from exercising his franchise. The plaintiff sued the defendant even though the candidate, to whom he intended to vote was declared elected. The defendant was held liable on the ground that the plaintiff's legal right was infringed. (If this case is asked in Part C ; Case Comment, the student has to cover the following heads also). Principle laid down: The Court of Appeal through Holt, C.J., said, “Every injury imports a damage though it does not cost the party one farthing. For a damage not merely pecuniary but an injury importsdamages when a person is thereby hindered of his Tights. As in an a ‘on for slanderous words, though a man does not lose a penny by oa onof repeating them, yet he shall have an action. So, a man gives another @ club on the ear, though it cost him nothing, not so much asa jitde diachylon (plaster) yet he shall have his action for itis a personal injury. So, aman shall have an action against another for, ryiding over his ground though it does him no damage ; for it is an invasion of his property and the others had no right to come there”. Judgment: The Court of Appeal held the defendant liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff. Holt, C.J., in the instant case, observed that, “If the plaintiff has a right, he must, of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise orenjoyment of it, and indeed, it is a vain thing to imagine a right without aremedy, for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal.” usBhim Singh vs. State of J & AIR 1986 SC 494:— In the instant case, Bhim Singh, an M.L.A. in the J & 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 the requisite period. The petitioner, W/o. the said M.L.A. sued on the ground that he was deprived of exercising his constitutional right to attend the Assembly and for the infringement of his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Bhim Singh had been released by the time, the case was decided by the Supreme Court. However, he was awarded exemplary damages of Rs. 50,000/-.