DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

0 Comments

MEANING: Damage without injury

EXPLANATION: this maximum deals with two terms ‘damage’ and ‘injuria’. Injury refers to the legal injury i.e. infringement of any legal right of the plaintiff and damage is not coupled with violation of any legal right of plaintiff. so in case of injury the legal remedies available but not in case of damage. does as the literal meaning of maximum States damage without injury, which does not give rise to any lawsuit or legal remedy.

ILLUSTRATION: if Ranbir Tharoor put separate Chinese food stall in front of Kalia Bhatt Chinese restaurant which gradually leads to downfall of the customers of the restaurant. Hare Kaliya the owner of restaurant will not be able to sue Ranbir aur I will any legal remedy because his no legal right is infringed.

CASES:

Gloucester Grammar School Case, [(1410) Y.B. Hill 11 Hen, 4 of 47, p. 21, 36.]

In this case, the defendant, a schoolmaster, set up a rival school to that of the plaintiffs. Because of the competition, the plaintiffs had to reduce their feesfrom 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 mil 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 Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow and Co.[(1892) A.C. 25.], a number of steamship companies combined together and drove the plaintiff company out of the tea-carrying trade by offering reduced freight. The House of Lords held that the plaintiff had no cause of action as the defendants had by lawful means acted to protect and extend their trade and inerease their profits.

In Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir(AIR. 1978 Guj. 13.), the plaintiffs sued for a permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from exhibitingthe film named “Jai Santoshi Maa” It was contended that the film hurt thereligious feelings of the plaintiff in so far as Goddess 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, requestof injunction was rejected.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *