To constitute a tort, it is essential that the following two conditions should

be satisfied:-

1. There must be some act or omission on the part of the defendant.

2. The act or omission should result in legal damage (INJURIA) , i.e ,

violation of legal rights vested in plaintiff.

1. ACT OR OMISSION:-

In order to make a person liable for a tort , he must have done some act
which he was not expected to do ,or he must have omitted to do
something which he was supposed to do. Either a positive wrongful act or
an omission which is legally made , will make a person liable .For
example, A commits the act of trespass or publishes a statement defaming
another person ,or wrongfully detains another person ,he can be made
liable for trespass, defamation or false imprisonment as the case may be.
Similarly when there is a legal duty to do some act and a person fails to
perform that duty, he can be made liable for such omission .For example,
if a corporation that maintains a public park, fails to put proper fences to
keep the children away from poisonous tree and a child plucks and eats
the fruits of the poisonous tree and dies, the corporation is liable for that
omission .Similarly if the municipal corporation having control over a
clock tower does not keep it in proper repairs and the falling of the same
results in the death of a number of persons, the corporations would be
liable for its omission to take care in the matter .In the same way ,an
employer failing to provide a safe system of work, would be liable for the
consequences of such an omission.

It may be noted that the wrongful act or a wrongful omission must be the
one recognised by law. if there is a mere moral or social wrong, there
cannot be a liability for the same, for example if somebody fails to help
a starving man or save a drowning child it is only a moral wrong and
therefore ,no liability can arise unless it can be proved that there was a
legal duty to help the starving man or save a drowning child.
2. LEGAL DAMAGE:-

In order to be successful in an action for tort ,the plaintiff has to prove

that there has been a a legal damage caused to him. in other words ,it has
got to be proved that there was a wrongful act-an act or omission-causing
breach of a legal duty or the violation of a legal right vested in the
plaintiff. Unless there has been violation of legal right, there can be the
same is actionable whether, as a consequence thereof ,the plaintiff has
suffered a legal loss or not. this is expressed by maxim injuria sine
damno and damnun sine injuria. Injuria means a legal infringement of
a legal right conferred by the law on the plaintiff or an unauthorised
interference .howsoever trival, with the plaintiffs rights.

Damnum means substantial harm .loss or damage in respect of money

,comfort. health or the like .thus, when there has been injuria or the
violation of a legal right and the same has not been coupled with a
damnum or harm to the plaintiff can still go to the court of law because
no violation of legal right should go undressed
Since what is actionable is the violation of a legal right, it is therefore
follows that when there is no violation of legal right, no action can lie in a
court of law even though the defendant act has caused some loss or harm
or damage to the plaintiff. this is expressed by the maxim damnun sine
injuria. it means that a damage without the violation of a legal right is
not actionable in court of law.

The reason for the same is that if the interference in right of another
person is not unlawful or unauthorised but a necessary consequence of
the exercise of his own lawful rights by the defendant ,no action should
lie.Thus, the taste to know whether the defendant should or should not be
liable is not whether the plaintiff has suffered any loss or not but the real
test is whether any lawful right vested in the plaintiff, has been violated
or not
 INJURIA SINE DAMNO

Injuria sine damno means violation of a legal right without causing any
harm, loss of damage to the plaintiff. There are two kind of torts:

1. Those torts which are actionable per se i.e. , actionable without the
proof of any damage or loss for instance, trespass to land is
actionable even though npo damage has been caused as a result of
that trespass.

2.The torts which are actionable only on tht proof of some damage
causec by an act.

Injuria sine damno covers the first of the above stated cases .in such
cases, there is no need to prove that as a consequence of an act, the
plaintiff has suffered any harm .for a successful action, the only thing
which has to be proved is that the plaintiffs legal right has been violated.
There is injuria.

CASE NO. 1:- ASHBY V. WHITE

It is a leading case explaining the maxim injuria sine damno .in this
case ,the plaintiff succeeded in his action ,even though the defendants act
did not cause any damage.the plaintiff was a qualified voter at a
parliamentary election, but the defendant ,a returning officer, wrongfully
refused to take plaintiffs vote. No loss was suffered by such refusal
because the candidate for whom hw wanted to vote won the election
inspite of that . It was held that defendant was liable.

C.J HOLT: 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
of enjoyment of it, and indeed,it is a vain thing to imagine a right without
a remedy:for want of right and wanmt of remedy are reciprocal.

Every injury imports a damage, though it does not costthe party one
farthing. For a damage not merely pecuniary but an injury imports a
damage, when a person is thereby hindered of his right.As an action for
slanderous words,though a man does not lose a penny by reason of
speaking them,yet he shall have an action.So,if a man gives another a cuff
on ear,though it cost him nothing,not so much as a little plaster,yet he
shall have his action ,for it is a personal injury.so, man shall have an
action against another for riding over his ground,though it does him to
damage;for it is an invasion of his property and the other has no right to
come there.

CASE NO. 2:- BHIM SINGH V. STATE OF J&K

The petitioner.an M.L.A of J&K Assembly,was wrongfully detained by

police while he was going to attend the assembly session.He was not
produced before the magistrate within the requisite period.as a
consequence of this ,the member was deprived pf his constitutional right
to attend the assembly session. There was also violation of fundamental
rights to personal liberty guaranteed under article 21 of the
constitution.by the time the petition was decided by the supreme court,
bhim singh had been released,by the way of consequal relief,exemplary
damage amounting to rs. 50,000 were awarded to him.

In the case of injuria sine damno, the loss suffered by the plaintiff is not
relevant for the purpose of cause of action. It may be relevant only as
regards the measure of damage.if the plaintiff has suffered no harm and
yet the wrongful act is actionable. The purpose of law is served in so far
as the violation of legal right does not remain without a legal remedy.if.
however the court feels that the violation of a legal right is owing to
mischevious and malicious act ,as happened in bhim singhs case court
paid exemplary damages .
DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

It means that damage is not coupled with an unauthorised interference

with the plaintiffs lawful right.causing of damage, however substantial,to
another person is not actionable in law unless there is also violation of a
legal right of the plaintiff.this is generally so when the exercise of legal
right by one results in consequental harm to the other.

The mere fact that is injured by another act gives in itself no cause of
action;if the act is deliberate ,the party injured will have no claim in law
even though the injury is intentional, so long as the other party is
exercising a legal right.

GLOUCESTER GRAMMAR SCHOOL:-

There the defendant, a schoolmaster,set up a rival school to that of the

plaintiff,because of the competition,the plaintiff had to reduce their fee
from 40 pence to 12 pence per scholar per quarter.it was held that the
plaintiff had no remedy for the loss thus suffered by them.

Hankford C.J :-

Damnum may be abseque injuria,as if I have a mill and my neighbour

builds another mill whereby the profit of my meal is diminished, I shall
have no action against him. Although I am damaged..but if a miller
disturb the water from going to my mill, for those any nuisance of the like
salt, I shall have such action as the law gives.

MOGUL STEAMSHIP CO. V. McGREGOR GOW & CO.:

A number of steamships 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 increase their profit.

USHABEN V. BHAGYALAXMI CHITRA MANDIR:-

The plaintiffs sued for a permanent injuction against the defendant to

restrain them from a permanent injuction against the defendant to restrain
them from exhibiting the film hurt the religious feelings of the plaintiff
in so far as goddesses saraswati,lakshmi,and parvati were depicted as
jealous were ridiculed it was observed that hurt to religious feelings had
not been recognised 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, nearly because it did not fit in with a tenets of his
particular religion.since there was no violation of a legal right, the request
of injunction was rejected.

ACTION V. BLUNDELL:-

The defendants by digging a coal pit intercepted the water which affected
the plaintiffs well ,less than 20 years old,at an instance of one mile, held
they were not liable,it was observed the person who owns the surface
may dig therein apply all that is there found to his own purpose at his free
will and pleasure, and all that if in the exercise of such rights, he
intercepts or drains off the water collected from underground springs in
the neighbours well, this inconvenience to the neighbour falls within the
description damnum sine injuria which cannot become the ground of
action.

CHESHMORE V. RICHARDS:-

The plaintiff a mill owner was from past 60 years using water for his mill
from a stream which was fed by rainfall prelocating through
underground strata to the stream,but not flowing in defined channels . the
defendants sunk a well on their land and pumped large quantities of
water,which would otherwise have gone to the plaintiffs stream thereby
causing loss to the plaintiff, for this the defendants were not held liable.

P.SEETHARAMAYA V. MAHALAKSHAMMA:-

There four defendants tried to ward off the flow of water into their plot
from a stream by digging a trench as well as putting up a bund of their
lands.the fifth defendant also tried to ton put up bunds on their lands by to
prevent the flow of waterto her land.as a result of the act of these five
defendants the rain water flowed to the plaintiffs land and destroyed the
plaintiffs land, the plaintiff requested for a permanent injuction
preventing them from making bunds and trenches and also for damages
amounting to rs.300 for the loss of already caused due to the flow of
water.
The high court held that the owner of land on or near a river has a right to
build a fence upon his ground to prevent damage to his ground by the
overflow of water,even though the as a result of same,the overflowing
water was diverted to neighbours land and caused damage,this being a
clear case of damnum sine injuria,the defendabts were not liable to the
plaintiffs.

The law permits the protection of ones property from apprehended danger
by preventing the entrance of flood water to ones land even though such
an act causes damage to neighbours. But if tbhe flood water has alreasy
entered ones land the law does not permits him to cast upon adjoining
land.

DICKINSON V. REUTERS TELEGRAM CO.:-

It is an another illustration where the defendants were held not liable

even though their negligence had caused damage to the plaintiff. The
defendant a telegraph company negligently delivered a telegram,meant
for somebody else to plaintiffs.the telegram contained an order for the
shipment of barley from Valparaiso to England. The plaintiff believed
that the message was meant for them and shipped the goods,which the
sender telegram refused to accept.the plaintiff was suffered through a
heavy loss sued the defendant company . it was held that defendant
company owed a contractual duty, omly to the sender of the telegram.
Since they did not owe any duty to the recipient of the telegram.

VISHNU DATT V BOARD OF H.S AND INTERMEDIATE

EDUCATION U.P:-

Vishnu datt an intermediate student was detained for shortage of

attendance.his detention was found by the court to be illegal as the
attendance register of the college were not maintained regularly , as a
consequence of detention he lost one year. His action to claim
compensation for the loss was not allowed as the plaintiffs claim
compensation for the loss was not allowed as the plaintiffs claim did not
fall under theheads of recognised in common law and moreover the
statutory obligation did npot proved for any compensation followed in the
circumstance above.
BRADFORD CORPORATION V PICKLES:

The house of lords went a step further and held that even if the harm to
the plaintiff has been caused by malice, no action can lie for the same
unless the plaintiff can prove that he has suffered injuria.

in this case the plaintiff had been deriving water from the adjoin ing land
of defendant which was at a higher level. the defendant sank a shaft over
his own land which diminished and discoloured thev water going to
plaintiffs land. The plaintiffs claimed an injunction to restrain the
defendant from sinking the shaft that alleging that the sole purpose of the
same was to injure plaintiffs as they did not purchase land at an
exorbitant price. The house of lords held that since the defendant was
exercising his legal right,he cant be made liable as though his act injured
the plaintiff,was done wit malice.

LORD ASHBOURNE SAID:-

the plaintiffs has no cause unless they can show that they are entitled to
the flow of water in question, and that the defendant has no right to do
what he is doing..the law states that in this houseCHESHMORE V.
RICHARDS. Cannot be acted with his legal rights through out and he is
to forfeit those rights and be punished for the legal exercise because of
certain motives are imputed to him? If his motives are the most genuine
and philanthrophic in world, they would not avail him when his actions
were illegal,if his motives are selfish and mercenary, that is no reason
why his right should should be confiscated when his actions are legal.

Thus, a legal act though motivated by malice will not the defendant
liable. The plaintiff can get compensation only if he proves to have
suffered injury because of an illegal act orf the defendant and not
otherwise.

TOWN AREA COMMITTEE V. PRABHU DAYAL:-

In this case the plaintiff constructed 16 shops on the old foundations of a

building. The said construction was made without giving a notice of
intention to erect a building under sec. 178 of the U.P municipal act and
without obtaining any necessary sanctions required under section 180 of
that act. The defendants demolished this construction. In an action against
the defendants to claim compensation for the demolition, the plaintiff
allege that the action of the defendants was not liable as no injuria
could be proved 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.

PAGADALA NARASIMHAN V. THE COMMISIONER AND

SPECIAL OFFICER, NELLOREV MUNCIPALITY :-

In this case, the plaintiffs bus, which was not in working condition was
parked on the road and caused obstruction to the traffic. The traffic police
removed the bus with the assistance of the municipal employers. It was
held that the officers were justified in their act as the same had been done
in discharge of the sovereign functions and therefore they could not be
held liable for the same.
ASSIGNMENT OF TORTS

ESSENTIALS OF TORTS

BURHAN-UD-DIN SALARIA

B.A, LL.B, SEMESTER 1 SECTION B