Damnum sine Injuria

Below you will find the Definition, Meaning, Examples, Landmark Case, Case Laws in India, and more information related to “Damn Sine Injuria”.

Damnum sine Injuria PDF

Download Damnum sine Injuria in Tort PDF from the above link 🔗

Damnum sine Injuria in Tort-

In tort law, “damnum sine injuria” is a fundamental principle that highlights the distinction between actual harm/loss and legally actionable harm. It essentially means “damage without injury” or “loss without a wrongful act.”

Damnum sine Injuria Definition:

“Damnum sine injuria” is a Latin legal maxim that translates to “damage without injury.” It describes a situation where a person suffers actual loss or harm (damnum) but without any infringement of their legal rights (injuria). In simpler terms, you’ve been hurt, but no law has been broken.  

Here’s a breakdown:

• Damnum (Damage): This refers to the actual loss or harm suffered. It can be financial, physical, emotional, or any other kind of detriment.
• Sine (Without): This simply means “without.”
• Injuria (Injury): In a legal context, “injury” doesn’t necessarily mean physical harm. It refers to the violation of a legal right.

Damnum sine Injuria Meaning:

In simple terms, “Damnum sine injuria” means that you may suffer harm or damage but you cannot take legal action for it unless your legal rights have been violated. In fact, in “Damnum sine injuria” no one (defendant) has done anything wrong in the eyes of the law.

Damnum sine Injuria Examples-

• Fair competition: A business loses customers due to fair competition
• Natural disaster: A person’s property is damaged due to a natural disaster
• Opening New shop: A new shop opens next to an established shop, leading to a loss of customers for the latter

Damnum sine Injuria Famous Cases-

Here are some famous case laws that illustrate the principle of “damnum sine injuria”:

1. Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410): The defendant, a schoolmaster, set up a rival school next to the plaintiff’s school. As a result, the plaintiff had to reduce his fees, suffering financial loss. However, it was held that the plaintiff had no cause of action as the defendant had not violated any legal right. The competition was lawful, and mere financial loss did not constitute a legal injury.
2. Mayor of Bradford v. Pickles (1895): The defendant, motivated by spite, sank a shaft on his land, which diminished the water supply to the plaintiff’s land. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s actions were malicious and unlawful. However, the court held that the defendant had the right to use his land as he pleased, and his motives were irrelevant as long as he did not violate any legal right of the plaintiff.
3. Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. (1892): A group of shipping companies formed a cartel and drove the plaintiff’s company out of business by offering lower freight rates. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had conspired to harm their business. However, the court held that the defendants’ actions were lawful as they were merely competing in the market, and the fact that their actions caused damage to the plaintiff did not make them unlawful.

These cases highlight that “damnum sine injuria” is a fundamental principle of tort law. It emphasizes that not all harm or loss is actionable in court. To have a valid claim, there must be a violation of a legal right, not just mere damage.

Damnum sine Injuria Case Law in India:-

Here are some notable Indian case laws that have dealt with this maxim:

• Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir (1978): The plaintiffs sought to restrain the exhibition of a film titled “Jai Santoshi Maa,” claiming it hurt their religious sentiments. The court held that mere hurt to religious feelings, without any violation of legal rights, did not constitute a cause of action. This case emphasized that “damnum sine injuria” applies even when the perceived harm is emotional or religious.
• Vijaya Education Trust v. State of Karnataka (2014): The petitioner, an educational trust, challenged the establishment of another educational institution in the same town, fearing it would adversely affect their business. The court, citing the Gloucester Grammar School Case, held that mere apprehension of business loss due to lawful competition did not amount to a legal injury.
• P. Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmamma (1964): This case dealt with the right of landowners to protect their property from floods. The court held that landowners could build barriers to protect their land, even if it resulted in water overflowing and damaging neighboring lands. This decision illustrated that exercising a legal right, even if it causes consequential damage to others, is not actionable.
• Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal (1975): The demolition of illegally constructed shops by authorities was challenged by the shop owners, who alleged malice. The court held that lawful actions taken in the enforcement of regulations were not actionable, regardless of the motive behind them. This case reinforced that “damnum sine injuria” applies even when the act causing damage is done with ill will, as long as it is within the bounds of law.

These Indian cases demonstrate that the principle of “damnum sine injuria” is firmly rooted in Indian jurisprudence. They highlight that for an act to be actionable in tort law, it must not only cause damage but also involve the violation of a legal right. The motive behind the act, even if malicious, is irrelevant if no legal right has been infringed.

Damnum sine injuria and Injuria sine damnum difference-

Relation	Damnum sine injuria	Injuria sine damnum
Meaning	“Damage without injury”	“Injury without damage”
Concept	This refers to a situation where a person suffers actual harm or loss (damnum), but there is no infringement of their legal rights (injuria). In other words, the person has been harmed, but no law has been violated.	This refers to a situation where there is an infringement of a person’s legal rights (injuria), but they do not suffer any actual harm or loss (damnum). In other words, the person’s rights have been violated, but they have not experienced any tangible negative consequences.
Example	If a new competitor opens a business next to yours and you lose some customers as a result, you may have suffered harm (damnum), but there is no legal injury (injuria) because fair competition is generally not considered a wrongful act.	If someone trespasses on your property without causing any damage, they have violated your right to exclusive possession, but you have not suffered any actual harm.
Legal implication	In cases of “damnum sine injuria,” there is generally no legal remedy available because there is no legal wrong to be addressed	In cases of “injuria sine damnum,” the person may still have a legal remedy, even if they have not suffered actual harm. This is because the law recognizes the importance of protecting legal rights, even if there are no immediate negative consequences.
Legal Remedy	No legal remedy is provided.	Yes, Legal Reemdy is available.
Legal wrong	Absence of a legal wrong.	Presence of Legal wrong.

Damnum sine Injuria in Hindi–

सरल शब्दों में, “Damnum sine injuria” का मतलब है कि आपको नुकसान या हानि हो सकती है लेकिन उसके लिए आप कानूनी कार्रवाई नहीं कर सकते है जब तक आपके कानूनी आधिकारो का उल्लंघन नहीं हुए हो। वास्तव में “Damnum sine injuria” में किसी(defendent) ने भी कानून की नजर में कुछ भी गलत नहीं किया है।

Saral Shabdo me “Damnum sine injuria” ka mtlb hai ki apko nukshan ya hani ho sakti hai lekin uske liye ap kanooni karvae nahin kar sakte hai jab tak apke kanooni aadhikaro ka ullanghan nahin hua ho. vastav me “Damnum sine injuria” me kisi(defendent) ne bhi kanoon ki nazar me kuch bhi galat nahin kiya hai.

Damnum sine Injuria MCQ questions and answers

Below are some MCQ questions and answers regarding Damnum sine Injuria:

1. Maxim “Damnum sine Injuria” means:

• (a) Damage without infringement of legal rights.
• (b) Damage with infringement of legal rights.
• (c) Infringement of legal right without damage.
• (d) Infringement of legal right with damage.

Ans: (a)

---

2. Damnum sine Injuria means ___________.

Ans: Damge without injury

Explanation: There is damage but no Violation of the legal right which occurred in Gloucester Grammar School Case.

---

3. In India the maxim “Damnum sine Injuria” has been propounded in

• (a) P. seetharamayya v mahalakshmi
• (b) Vishnu Datt v. board of HS & inter Uttar pradesh
• (c) Town area committee v Prabhu dayal
• (d) All the above

Ans: (d)

---

4. Damnum sine Injuria is a Latin maxim which means:

• (a) Damage caused to the plaintiff with legal injury.
• (b) Damage caused to the plaintiff without legal injury.
• (c) Damage which is actionable.
• (d) None of the above

Ans: (b)

---

Thankyou for Visiting KanoonExpert

by kalpana