A tort may be defined as a civil wrong independent of contract, for which the appropriate remedy is an action for damage. Tort is not a breach of contract. The law of torts is regarded as “an instrument for making people adhere to standards of reasonable behaviour and respect the rights and interests of one another”.  This is achieved by securing interests and ensuring in cases when a person whose protected interest is compromised can recover damages from the person who has breached the same person for the damage suffered by him. For any wrongful act to be a tort there shall be present three constituents. First, there shall be a wrongful act, secondly, there shall be legal damage arising out of the wrongful act. Lastly, there shall be a legal remedy in form of damages arising from the wrongful act. In this article let us study important maxim related to act resulting in damage without any legal injury i.e., “Damnum sine injuria”.

“Damnum sine injuria” is a Latin legal term that translates to “damage without injury” or “loss without wrongdoing.” This concept is relevant in the context of tort law, where not all harm or loss suffered by an individual necessarily results in a legal remedy. In such case, the mere fact of damage does not mean there is an injury i.e. violation of Legal Rights. There are many acts which are not wrongful in the eyes of Law.

Following damages are not actionable:

• Loss due to fair competition because a fair competition leads to the welfare of society as a whole.
• If the damage is caused due to good faith to avoid a greater degree of damage.
• If the damage is done because of a defamatory statement, which is given underprivileged occasions such as orders or instruction in the course.

Case Laws Related to Damnum Sine Injuria:

In Gloucester Grammar School, (1410) Y.B. 11 Hen. IV case, the defendant in this case was a schoolmaster who was working in the plaintiff’s school. Later he left his job. He established another school in the same neighbourhood. The defendant was a popular teacher, due to which children from the plaintiff’s school flocked in the defendant’s school. Which caused financial loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought a suit for indemnification in the court of law and claimed compensation from the defendant. The court held that no compensation can be awarded on the grounds that the plaintiff has suffered financial loss. Since the cause of the loss to the plaintiff was not due to infringement of any legal right. Since the defendant was right in establishing a school where he did and did not violate any legal right of the plaintiff. As it is a fair competition, the plaintiff has an equal opportunity to improve its standard and increase his strength.

In Wilson v. Waddell, (1876) 2 Appcas 95 case, where a landowner induced subsidence of his surface at higher level by operating his mines, as a result of which the surface water gathered and transferred into an adjacent lower coal mine by gravitation and percolation. The Court held that no action could be taken by the owner of the latter because the right to operate a mine was a right of property that, when properly exercised, gave birth to no liability.

In Day V. Browning, (1878) 10 Ch D 294 case, the plaintiff s house was called Ashford Lodge for sixty (60) years. The adjoining house belonged to the defendant and was named Ashford Villa for forty (40) years. The defendant altered the name of his house to that of the plaintiff s house. The plaintiff alleged that the act of defendant had caused him a great deal of inconvenience and annoyance. The plaintiff further said that the material value of his property had been diminished because of the plaintiff s act to rename his house and name it like that of the defendant. It was ruled that the defendant was not liable as he had not violated any right of the plaintiff.

In Mogul Steamship Co. v. Mc Gregor Gow & Co., (1892) AC 25: 61 LJQB 295 case, the shipowners who exported tea from one port to the other, A, B, C and D, collaborated to hold the full trade in their hands. Subsequently, by providing special terms to customers trading and get them to the exclusion of F, F sued A, B, C and D for damages suffered by their actions, F, a rival shipowner, to leave the trade. This was held that F was not entitled to action, since no legitimate right of F were violated. Harm due to competition wasn’t prosecutable in trade.

In Gerrard V Crowe, AIR 190 PC 111 case, the parties to the case owned lands upon opposite sides of a river, which in flood, rose higher than its banks, and some of the flood water used to flow over the respondents land, ultimately finding its way back to the river. The respondents erected an embankment from a point on their lands about half a mile from the river diagonally to its bank, with the object of protecting their land behind the embankment, and the water-flow over the appellant s land in time of heavy floods was thereby increased. The appellant sued the respondents for damages and an injunction. The Privy Council held that the action could not be maintained, and Viscount Cave observed: The general rule as the right of an owner of the land on or near a river to protect him from flood is well settled.

In Chasemore v. Richards, (1875) 7 H.L.S. 349 case, the plaintiff (a landowner as well as mill owner) was running a mill on his own land and for this purpose he was using the water of the stream for a long time (about six years). The defendant dug an extensive well in his own land with the aim of supplying water to the inhabitants of district. Consequently, thereby, the defendant s actions cut off the underground water supply of stream because percolation the water resulted in gathering of the water in the well of the defendant. The quantity of water of stream was reduced and the mill was closed for non-availability of water. Plaintiff sued defendant for damage. The Court held that defendant was not liable because of principle of damnum sine injuria. The defendant’s actions did not result violation of any legal right of the plaintiff, although the plaintiff suffered actual loss in money.

In Vijaya Education Trust (R) v. State of Karnataka represented by Principal Secretary, Writ Petition No. 33929 of 2016 case, the petitioner Trust has been operating a Pre-University College at Vijaypura since the financial year 2004-2005, in compliance with the sanction/permission given by the 2nd respondent-Director of the Pre-University Education Department. Similar sanction/permission was given to the 4th respondent-Trust by 1st respondent-Government for the establishment and operation of an educational institution, i.e., a P.U. College in the same city. Petitioner contended that establishing institutes lie this was wrong. While rejecting the petition court said that “The contention of the petitioner that, the establishment of one more educational institution in the very same town would adversely affect petitioner’s business, is hit by the maxim ‘damnum sine injuria’.

In, Usha ben Trivedi v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir, AIR 1978 Guj 13 case, the plaintiffs had asked the high court of Gujarat to issue a permanent injunction on the film. Film in the matter was called Jai Santoshi Maa. The petitioner has said that the film is depicted in a way that it hurts the religious sentiments of the plaintiffs. It shall be observed that here only the plaintiff was saying that her religious sentiments have been hurt but no one else. The court rejected the petition by the plaintiff. Since there was no legal damage done. The court said, “No person has a legal right to enforce his religious views on another or to restrain another from doing a lawful act”

In Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Board of High School and Intermediate Examination Air 1981 All 46 case, the plaintiff was a student who was wrongfully detained by the Principal, on the basis of misconstruction of the relevant regulations, on the account of shortage of attendance. The plaintiff filed a suit and argued that he was entitled to damages as he had suffered loss of one year. But the court ruled that the plaintiff cannot claim compensation as misconstruction of regulations does not amount to a tort.

In Town Area Committee V. Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1975 All 132 case, the plaintiff done construction of 16 shops on the old foundations of the building and the defendant Town Area Committee illegally demolished these constructions. According to him the notice under Section 186 of the U.P. Municipal Act was bad as it gave to the plaintiff only two hours’ time to demolish the constructions and not a reasonable time as contemplated in Section 302 of the Act. It was also asserted that demolition, after this notice was bad as the notice was served at a time when the plaintiff was out of station. The action was said to be mala fide. The Court held that if a person constructs a building illegally, the demolition of such building by the municipal authorities would not amount to causing injuria to the owner of the property. No person has the right to enjoy the fruits of an act which is an offence under law. As the plaintiff has failed to prove that he had suffered injuria in the legal sense, he is not entitled to get any compensation.

Conclusion:

It can be concluded that Damnum sine injuria is an essential principle of tort law. Though it is centuries old it is still very much useful and is used by courts very frequently. The meaning that there can be no legal implications without any legal damage is important. Because without this we would see several cases in the courts where people would be asking for compensation without any good reason. It also helps define the rights of a person better it protects the right of a person to do an act even in cases where it could cause loss to the other party. Thus, helping in preserving the legal rights of a person.