JITENDRA CHAUHAN COLLEGE OF LAW

• Student name: Tamanna Sheth

• Roll number & Division: D-227

• Subject: Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria sine Damnum

• Faculty to whom the project is being submitted: Prof Chayya Shah

1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to one and all without whom it
would not be possible to complete the project. Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude
towards Prof. Chayya Shah for guiding me throughout the project. I also feel thankful and
express my gratitude towards our Principal Dr. Priya J. Shah for giving me this opportunity.
All the respected teachers provided me with their vital support and guidance because of which
I could make this project.
This project helped me in finding my capabilities and also enhanced my research skills. I would
also like to express my sincere thanks to my family and my elder sister; it would not have been
possible to finish this project without their support and coordination.
Lastly, I would like to thank my friends who have been upfront whenever I needed help from
them for making this project within the stipulated time frame.

Tamanna Sheth
FY LL.B D-227

2
 Table of Contents

Sr.No Topic Page No

1. Introduction 4
2. Damnum Sine Injuria 4
3. Caselaw on Damnum Sine Injuria 5
4. Injuria sine damno 6
5. Caselaw on Injuria sine damno 6
6. Difference 7
7. Conclusion 8
8. References 9

3
 1. Introduction1
The law of torts is a collection of all the circumstances in which court gives a remedy by way
of damages, for legally unjustified harm or injury done by one to another person. There are
three elements which need to be proved before constituting a tort: -
1. There must be an act or omission on the part of the defendant.
2. That act or omission should be in violation of a legal right vested in the plaintiff.
3. The wrongful act or omission thus done by the defendant is of such a nature to give
rise to a legal remedy.

Both the maxims are divided into three parts as follows: -

• Damnum/Damno means substantial harm, loss or damage with respect to the money,
health, etc.
• Injuria means an infringement of a right given by the law to the plaintiff.
• Sine means without.
These 2 maxims fall under the category of qualified rights, & in the cases of qualified rights
there is no presumption of damages and the violation of such rights is actionable only on the
proof of damages

2. Damnum Sine Injuria2

The literal meaning of the maxim, Damnum Sine Injuria, is loss or damage in terms of money,
property, or any physical loss that occurs without the infringement of any legal right. It is not
actionable in law even if the act was intentional and done with the intent of causing harm to
someone else but without infringing on the person's legal rights.
Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim that refers to an injury suffered by the plaintiff but no
violation of any legal right of a person has taken place. In such instances, where there is no
violation of a legal right, but the plaintiff suffers injury or damage, the plaintiff cannot 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.

1
https://blog.ipleaders.in/damnum-injuria/
2
https://www.ilms.academy/blog/principle-of-damnum-sine-injuria-and-injuria-sine-damnum

4
 3. Caselaw on Damnum Sine Injuria
In the case, Mogul Steamship Co. V. McGregor Gow and Co., several companies involved in
the trading of steamships, joined forces intending to drive the plaintiff's company out of the
tea-carrying company by reducing and helping at a reduced price. It was held that the plaintiff
has no cause of action because the other companies have infringed on no legal rights.

In Gloucester Grammar School Case3 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. 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".

In Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir4, the plaintiffs sued for a permanent injunction
against the defendants to restrain them from exhibiting the film named "Jai Santoshi Maa". It
was contended that the film hurt the religious feelings of the plaintiff in so far as Goddesses
Saraswati, Laxmi and Parvati were depicted as jealous and were ridiculed. It was observed that
hurt to religious feelings had not been recognized as a legal wrong. Moreover, no person has a
legal right to enforce his religious views on another or to restrain another from doing a lawful
act, merely because it did not fit in with the tenets of his particular religion. Since there was no
violation of a legal right, request of injunction was rejected.

In Bradford Corporation (Mayor of) v. Pickles5 House of Lords went a step further and held
that even if the harm to the plaintiff has been caused maliciously, no action can lie for the same
unless the plaintiff can prove that he has suffered injuria. In this case, the plaintiffs had been
deriving water from the adjoining land of the defendant which was at a higher level. The
defendant sank a shaft over his own land which diminished and discoloured the water flowing
to the land of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed an injunction to restrain the defendant from
sinking the shaft alleging that the sole purpose of the same was to injure the plaintiffs as they
did not purchase his land at an exorbitant price. The House of Lords held that since the

3
(1410) YB 11 Hen IV, fo. pl. 201, 23, f. 47, pi. 19
4
AIR 1978 Guj 13, (1977) GLR 424
5
[1895] A.C. 587

5
defendant was exercising his lawful right, he could not be made liable even though the act,
which injured the plaintiff, was done maliciously.

4. Injuria sine damno6

Injuria Sine Damnum is a legal maxim that means that the plaintiff suffered no physical injury
or damage as a result of injury, loss, or damage. It is a Latin term in which ‘Injuria' means
injury, ‘sine' means without and ‘damnum' means property and any other physical loss, the
word refers to ‘injury suffered without actual loss.'
In this case, the plaintiff does not have to prove the damages he has suffered; he only has to
prove that he has suffered some legal damage and that the action he has brought is actionable
per se. For example, if X roams around Y's house without reasoning, there is a violation of Y's
legal right, and thus this maxim applies.
In the case of Injuria Sine Damnum, the loss suffered is not physical, but rather due to a
violation of a legal right. As a result, the damages received by the aggrieved party are the result
of some kind of loss, and the amount for damages is determined solely to compensate the
victim. However, where a legal right is violated due to a malicious and malicious act, the
number of damages set can be raised, as in the case of Bhim Singh vs. the State of J&K.

5. Caselaw on Injuria sine damno

In the following case of Bhim Singh vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Mr Bhim Singh, an MLA
of Jammu & Kashmir was arrested & detained in police custody & was deliberately prevented
from attending the sessions of the legislative assembly to be held. There was also a voting
session which was going to be held and since he was not allowed to go. At the assembly session
where his vote was very important. Though the person to whom he wanted to vote won but his
right to vote was infringed.
He was arrested and was not even presented before the court for four days and was kept in a
hidden place. The case is all about the violation of personal liberty where the police though
obtaining remand of the arrested person, not producing him before the magistrate within the
requisite period. There was a gross violation of rights under Article 21 & Article 22.
It was held that there was an arrest with the mischievous & malicious intent & the plaintiff was
entitled to the compensation of Rs. 50,000 since there was an arrest of a member of the
legislative assembly while he was on his way to the legislative assembly which resulted in the

6
https://www.ilms.academy/blog/principle-of-damnum-sine-injuria-and-injuria-sine-damnum

6
deprivation of the right to attend the impending assembly session. In the particular cases of
Injuria Sine Damnum, the court has the jurisdiction to compensate by awarding suitable
monetary compensation.
It was concluded that the member of the legislative assembly was arrested while en route to the
seat of assembly & in consequence of the member was deprived of his constitutional rights to
attend the assembly session & responsibility for the arrest & hence is entitled to reasonable
compensation.

In the case of Ashby vs White, the plaintiff was a qualified voter at the parliamentary elections
which were held at that point of time. The defendant, a returning officer wrongfully refused to
take the plaintiff's vote. The plaintiff, however suffered no damage since the candidate whom
he wished to vote had already won the election, but still the defendant was held guilty by the
court. The court held that damage is not merely pecuniary but injury imports a damage, so
when a man is hindered of his legal rights, he is entitled to remedies. Hence, according to the
meaning of the maxim Injuria Sine Damnum, the defendant was held guilty and was liable to
pay damages to the plaintiff, although no damage was caused to him but by the act of the
defendant, the plaintiff suffered a violation of his legal right to vote. Hence, the court said that
the plaintiff was entitled to damages by the defendant.

6. Difference7
S.No Damnum Sine Injuria Injuria sine Damnum

Damnum sine Injuria refers to the

Injuria Sine damnum is the legal injury
damages suffered by the plaintiff but no
1. caused to the plaintiff without any
damage is being caused to the legal rights
damage to the physical injury.
as there is no violation of it

It is an infringement of a legal right

It is the losses suffered without the
where even if no loss has been suffered
2. infringement of any legal right hence
by the plaintiff still creates an actionable
creating no cause of action.
cause of action.

No compensation in the form of damages Compensation in the form of damages is

3.
is awarded by the court. awarded by the court.

7
https://blog.ipleaders.in/damnum-injuria/sine-injuria-and-injuria-sine-damnum/

7
 This maxim is for the moral wrongs This maxim is for the legal wrongs
4. which have no action in the eyes of the which are actionable if the person’s legal
law. right has been violated.

The principle of this maxim is that a
person exercises in such a manner within
5. reasonable limits which does not ground
action in tort merely because it causes
damages to other people
The principle of this maxim is that
whenever there is an invasion of a legal
right there creates a cause of action and
the person whose right is vested is
entitled to bring an action.

In this, the plaintiff suffers legal injury

In this, the plaintiff suffers a loss but has
6. doesn’t matter they have suffered any
suffered no legal injury.
loss on that account.

Damages without injury are not This is actionable since there is a

7.
actionable violation of a legal right.

7. Conclusion8
The conclusion of the two maxims is such that one is a moral wrong for which the law gives
no remedy even though they cause great loss or detriment to the plaintiff’s but on the other
hand other one is a legal wrong for which the law does give a legal remedy though there be
violation of a private right, without actual loss or detriment in that particular case.
The main aim of the maxim Damnum Sine Injuria is that no ground of action or no cause of
action lies for a person who is acting within reasonable limits even though the other person is
suffering losses on that account while the main aim of the maxim Injuria Sine damnum is that
if the legal right of a person is violated then a cause of action arises and the person whose legal
right has been infringed is entitled to bring a suit against the person who has done it. In these
cases, a qualified right has been violated which is different from absolute rights.

8
https://indianlegalsolution.com/damnum-sine-injuria-and-injuria-sine-damnum/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/damnum-injuria/

8
 References
1) https://blog.ipleaders.in/damnum-injuria/
2) https://www.ilms.academy/blog/principle-of-damnum-sine-injuria-and-injuria-sine-
damnum
3) (1410) YB 11 Hen IV, fo. pl. 201, 23, f. 47, pi. 19
4) AIR 1978 Guj 13, (1977) GLR 424
5) [1895] A.C. 587
6) https://blog.ipleaders.in/damnum-injuria/sine-injuria-and-injuria-sine-damnum/
7) https://indianlegalsolution.com/damnum-sine-injuria-and-injuria-sine-damnum/