LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

PROJECT TOPIC –

DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

SUBMITTED TO -

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR KAVITA SINGH

SUBMITTED BY -

HARSH SAHU

BA.LLB 1ST YEAR

ROLL NO. – 2017 BA.LLB 88

Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................................................................................3
Review of literature....................................................................................................................4
Objectives...................................................................................................................................5
Introduction................................................................................................................................6
Categories of damnum absque injuria........................................................................................8
Difference between Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum......................................9
Analysis of several landmark cases..........................................................................................10
1. Gloucester grammar school v. Independent school Gloucestershire (1410).........10
2. Action v. Blundell (1843)......................................................................................10
3. Northern Plastics Ltd. vs. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Ors.
(20.02.1997 - SC).............................................................................................................12
4. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed...........................13
5. Ushaben Navinchandra Trivedi v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir...........................14
6. Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmamma....................................................................15
7........................................................................................................................................16
8. Vishnu datt v. Board of High School & Intermediate education, U.P.,.................16
9. Bradford corporation v. Pickles (1895).................................................................17
10. Pagadala Narasimham v. The Commissioner and Special Officer, Nellore
Municipality.....................................................................................................................18
11. Jethu Singh v. State of Rajasthan...........................................................................20
Conclusion................................................................................................................................22
Bibliography.............................................................................................................................23
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to thank everyone who helped me out in completing my project
directly or indirectly. I show and express a special token of gratitude towards our Law of
Torts Teacher, Associate Professor Kavita Singh without whose guidance and support, it
would have been pretty difficult to complete this project. I would also like to thank NLIU’s
library, which helped me a lot in the making of this project. At the end I would also like to
thank my parents for their endless support and true guidance and my batch mates for their
support.

I acknowledge that without their help this project would not have been seen this day.
 HARSH SAHU

2017 BA.LLB 88

Review of literature
Tort law textbook 2nd edition
This second edition of Tort Law textbook provides a clear, accessible, and up-to-date
introduction to all areas of tort law found in introductory law classes. The text has been
extensively revised and re-structured to create an independent textbook resource. End-of-
chapter questions, assessment exercises, and chapter summaries, as well as summaries of the
key cases referred to throughout the text enable students to test their knowledge and check
their understanding of tort law.

Street on torts
Tried and tested by generations of students, Street on Torts can be trusted to provide a wide-
ranging overview, and a clear and accurate explanation of tort law. Students new to tort law
can read Street chapter by chapter as they work through their lectures: the book is carefully
structured to map closely to typical undergraduate law courses, providing all the essential
material in one volume. The book offers students a contextualized and thought-provoking
account of tort law by ensuring they are given the 'bigger picture' surrounding the main torts
discussed in the book. It also provides a strong analysis of case law, explaining how
tortsactually work and examining the social purposes behind them.An Online Resource
Centre accompanies the book with twice-yearly updates on key new cases and legislation,
providing students with easy access to significant developments in the law, and a selection of
useful web links.
 Objectives

 Explanation of damnum sine injuria as an unactionable tort.

 Detailed study of damnum sine injuria through landmark cases.

Introduction

Meaning -

Damnum means = Damage in the sense of money, Loss of comfort , service , health etc.

Sine means = Without
Injuria means =  Infringement of  a legal right / injury to legal right.

 Damnun sine injuria means damages , monetary loss, to the plaintiff without violation of

legal right, not actionable because no injury to legal right.

        In Simple words,  Damnum sine injuria means damage without infringement of any
legal right. damage without injury is not actionable. Mere loss of money's worth does not of
itself constitute legal damage. There are many acts which though harmful are not wrongful in
the eyes of law, therefore do not give rise to a right of action in favour of the person who
sustains the harm. No one is to be considered a wrong doer who merely avails himself of his
legal rights, though his action may result in damage to another.

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 consequential harm to the other.

“The mere fact that a man is injured by another’s 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”

Plaintiff’s right is not respected by another but where the breach of plaintiff’s right does not
cause damage, or at least not a calculable or admissible damage. A finding of damnum sine
injuria can be the basis for a finding of nominal damages. Thus in cases of damnum sine
injuria the injury is de minimis, i.e. too small to be remedied practically at the law. In such
cases the plaintiff will have a satisfaction remedy of nominal damages - which are also called
symbolic damages.

As a correlative subject, some of those cases will be considered where there may be a
technical wrong committed, but through some defect in the plaintiff’s right, title, or interest,
or through the absence of these things, the law presumes that he has no right which can be
damaged at all. These are properly cases of injuria sine damnum wrong without actual
damage, as contradistinguished from those where the plaintiff’s right to the thing injured is
complete; yet the injury is irremediable at law, because, however great the loss may be, the
law declares that no wrong has been committed. In neither case is there any remedy. It is
hoped that such an inquiry as this may prevent much useless litigation, expensive to the client
and perhaps vexatious and unremunerative to the attorney, since such cases more than any
others are taken by the attorney upon contingent compensation, where this is allowed. While
a party may consider himself aggrieved at not being provided with a remedy by the laws of
his country, it may be of considerable advantage to him to know the fact before entering into
litigation, where in the ordinary course of events defeat is inevitable, assuming that the case
is properly presented on the adverse side, and that the court is informed of the law. It is
proposed to treat the subject in its relation to the law of torts. In a broad sense, when a
promissory note becomes barred by the Statute of Limitations, or when a creditor is
compelled by a bankrupt or insolvent law to take a small percentage instead of the whole
claim, or when a verbal agreement falls within the purview of the Statute of Frauds, a person
suffers a loss and it is a loss without a remedy, but it is not what lawyers understand by the
term damnum absque injuria. It is true, as a general proposition, that a person has a right to be
secure in his life, his person, his liberty, health, reputation, and property, real and
personal;and further, that for a violation of this security, for an injury to any of these things,
he or his representatives can recover some sort of damages. We shall consider in their order
those cases of injury to these things where no damages can be recovered — where the law
imputes no wrong, and therefore gives no redress. The subject of injuries to real and personal
property includes chapters on injuries to the holders and owners of stocks and shares in
incorporated companies, coming under the general head of conversion of personal property,
and the subject of injuries to real property includes a chapter on injuries from mining
operations, and one on interference with subterranean and surface streams and percolating
waters. This is followed by a consideration of subjects, which it has been found convenient to
consider separately, viz : Injuries arising from the nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance
of public officers, the subject of injuries arising from negligence, and certain cases of
misrepresentation and deceit.

Categories of damnum absque injuria

Edward Weeks identified three categories of damnum absque injuria: the absence of legal
protection for some interests, the general limits to legal protection of interests, and the
varying extent of legal protections of interests.

Absence of legal protection for some interests

Weeks and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. identified several interests that lacked legal protection
altogether. At the time of Weeks' treatise, there was no legal protection for emotional distress
unconnected to a physical injury. Holmes also cited the example of an easement for light and
air—if a neighbour built up a tall structure that overshadowed your house, you would have no
legal remedy.

General limits to legal protection of interests

Weeks and Holmes also identified that there could be damage without legal remedy based on
some doctrines that limited liability. Contributory negligence, for example, could deprive a
plaintiff of a legal remedy against a negligent defendant.

Varying extent of legal protections of interests

Weeks and Holmes also recognized that there could be damage without legal remedy if the
damage occurred outside the scope of protection for legally recognized
interests. Riparian owners, for example, could suffer damage from their neighbors upstream
use of the water, but as long as the use was considered reasonable there would be no legal
remedy.
Difference between Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum

No. Damnum Sine Injuria Injuria Sine Damnum

1. Meaning : Meaning:

 Damnum means damage in the sense   Injuria means legal injury or loss

of money, loss of comfort, service, or infringement of a legal right.
health etc.    
Sine means without.
Sine means without.
damno  means  damages, monetary
Injuria means legal injury or loss or loss.
infringement of a legal right.
In short, Injuria sine damno means
In short, Damnum sine injuria means Injury without damage or it means
damage without infringement of any infringement of an absolute private
legal right. right without any actual loss or
damage.

2. Example : Example:

Gloucester Grammar school case, Ashby vs white: in this case the

1410 In this famous case, Court held plaintiff succeeded in his action in
that, Deft not liable. Compensation is his action even though the
no ground of action even though defendants act did not cause any
monetary loss in caused if no legal action. The plaintiff was a
right is violated of anybody. disqualified voter at a parliamentary
election, but the defendant, a
returning officer, wrongfully
refused to take plaintiff’s vote. No
loss was suffered by such refusal
because the candidate for whom he
wanted to vote in election in spite of
that. It was held that the defendant
was liable.
3. Damage without injury is not This is actionable, because there is
actionable. violation of legal right, even though
plaintiff suffers no loss in term of
money and defendant is liable.
4. Relevant Case law : Relevant Case law:

a) Mayor of Bradford v/s Pickles 1895 a) Ashby v/s White, 1703.

b) Gloucester Grammar school case, b) Marzetti v/s Williams 1830

1410 c) Ashrafilal v/s Municipal
c) Chasemore v/s Richards 1859 corporation of Agra, 9121.
 Analysis of several landmark cases

1. Gloucester grammar school v. Independent school Gloucestershire (1410)

 Facts

There , 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.

 Judgements

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.”

2. Action v. Blundell (1843)

 Excerpt

In 1843 the Court of Exchequer Chamber decided what became, for its time,
the leading Anglo-American case on legal rights to underground water. The
ruling adopted in Acton v. Blundell 1 was that a landowner owns everything
below the surface of his land 2 so that, regardless of the effect on other owners,
he may take and dispose of whatever lies beneath--including underground
1
water.

1
A.C (1410) Y.B. Hill 11 Hen, 4 of 47, p. 21, 36.
  Facts

In Acton, the plaintiff's declaration alleged that he maintained a business as a

cotton spinner in the town of Wigan (about 15 miles northeast of Liverpool),
that for many years he had relied on a certain well to supply water essential to
his business and that the defendant, in the course of nearby coal mining
operations, had intercepted and diverted the underground source of the
water. 3 The defendant claimed he was within his rights in digging mining pits
23
on his own land, even if he thereby caused the underground water to drain
away. 4 The trial judge, Baron Rolfe, instructed the jury in defendant's favor
and the verdict went against plaintiff. On appeal, the critical issue was whether
underground water should be subject to the rules governing water in surface
streams.

 Judgement

The court conceded that landowners along a surface water course were
required to share the common supply, each one being entitled to take water in
a way which would not interfere with the equivalent rights of other owners. It
was observed “The person who owns the surface, may dig therein and apply
all that is there found tohis own purposes, at his free will and pleasure, and
that if in the exercise of such rights, he intercepts or drains off the water
collected from underground springs in the neighbour’s well, this
inconvenience to his neighbour falls within description damnum abseque
injuria which cannot become the ground of action.”

3
3. Northern Plastics Ltd. vs. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Ors.
(20.02.1997 - SC)

 Facts

Before we deal with the aforesaid question it will be necessary to note the
relevant background facts leading to the present controversy between the
parties. They project a chequered history. The common appellant, Northern
Plastics Ltd., which will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant' for the sake
for convenience, is said to have obtained Small Scale Industries Registration
(SSI Registration) on 24th August 1985 for slitting and confectioning of
jumbo rolls of various types of films. The said registration, according to the
appellant, was obtained under the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act,
1951 ('IDR Act for short). A notification was issued by the competent
authority under the said Act on 18th July 1986 effectively taking away the
exemption from requirement of licence in respect of Item 20 of 1st Schedule
to the IDR Act thus making it obligatory for owner of industrial undertaking to
have licence within six months. It is the case of the appellant that although it
was not the owner of industrial undertaking as defined by the IDR Act, under
a mistaken belief it applied for COB licence on 8th December 1986. On 7th
July 1988 a notification was issued by the Central Government in exercise of
its powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act exempting jumbo
rolls of graphic art films and jumbo rolls of photographic colour paper, of
width 1 metre or more of length 600 metres or more, falling within Chapter 37
of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), when
imported into India, from so much of that portion of the duty of customs
leviable thereon under the said First Schedule as was in excess of the amount
calculated at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem, subject to the following
conditions:
the importer undertakes conversion of the said jumbo rolls by slitting or
confectioning into finished products;
the importer holds an industrial licence under the Industries (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951), for slitting and confectioning of photo-
sensitised materials from jumbo rolls.

 Judgements

S.B. Majumdar.J, held that “Juridically, harm of this description is

called damnum sine injuria, the term injuria being here used in its true
 sence of an act contrary to law [Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn. by
Fitzgerald, p.357, para 85]. The reason why the law suffers a person
knowingly to inflict harm of this description on another, without holding him
accountable for it, is that such harm done to an individual is a gain to society
at large.”4

4. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed

 Facts

Respondents 1 and 2 are owners of a site, bearing Survey No. 98 in the town
of Mehmadabad. They made an application under Rule 3 of the Rules to the
District Magistrate, Kaira, for the grant of a Certificate that there was no
objection to the location of a cinema theatre at this site. The District
Magistrate then notified in the prescribed Form, the substance of the
application by publication in newspapers, inviting objections to the grant of a
No-objection Certificate. In response thereto, several persons lodged
objections, but the appellants, who are the proprietors of a cinema house,
situated on Station Road, Mehmadabad, were not among those objectors.
Some of the objections were that a Muslim graveyard, a Durgah, a compost
depot, a school and public latrines were situated in the vicinity of the proposed
site. the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari,
mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order directing the Respondents to
treat the No-objection Certificate granted to Respondents 1 and 2 as illegal,
void and ineffectual They further asked for an injunction restraining
Respondents 1 and 2 from utilising the certificate for the purpose of building a
cinema theatre.

 Judgement

The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no
right vested in the appellant had been infringed, or prejudiced or adversely
affected as a direct consequence of the order impugned by him, and as such,
he was not an aggrieved person' having a locus standi in the matter.5

4
Writ Petition No.3023 of 1989
5
Civil Appeal No. 2035 of 1971.
5. Ushaben Navinchandra Trivedi v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir 

 Facts

The plaintiffs appellants filed Civil Suit claiming a permanent injunction

against the defendants respondents restraining them from exhibiting the
cinematographic picture named "Jai Santoshl Maa". Defendant-respondent
No. 1 is a name and style of business carried on by defendant-respondent No.
2, who had produced the said movie. Defendant-respondent No. 3 is the
Director of the movie and defendant respondent No. 4 had written the Them
thereof Defendant-respondent No. 5 is the distributor and defendants-
respondents Nos. 6 to 14 are the theatres wherein the aforesaid movie was
exhibited in the City of Ahmedabad After filing of the suit the plaintiffs to*
out a notice of motion for a temporary injunction restraining the exhibition of
the movie by the defendants.

 Judgement

The suit had been filed by the plaintiffs with mala fide intention and to harass
the defendants. The said film discloses in the very beginning that the entire
film is imaginary and it would he fallacy to appreciate the said film with
reference to mythological books. The defendants state that it is usual and
normal to show in religious and mythological films, certain incidents which go
to show that Gods or Goddesses are to test the –sincerity of the devotee and
that end, the devotee is made to suffer misery and humiliation. In The film the
three Goddess are depicted to be saying that they tried to test the security of
Satyavati in her devotion to Santoshi Mata and this itself indicates Ought there
was no malice as alleged by plaintiffs. After hearing both the parties the
learned City Civil Judge discharged the rule on the ground that the subject-
matter of the suit did not involve any civil right of the plaintiffs and
consequently did not far under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. In order
to complete the judgment the learned trial Judge considered the motion on
merits and came to the conclusion that the title of the movie and the
advertising literature thereof Cleary indicated that the mode was religious and
mythological and it was natural that any person interested in mythology and
when attracted and sm the picture, it would hurt his religious belief. It is this
order refusing the temporary injunction which is challenged in this appeal.
 The result, therefore, is that this appeal of the plaintiffs is dismissed and the
impugned order of the learned trial Judge is confirmed. There shall be no order
as to costs of this appeal.6

6. Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmamma

 Facts

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 on their lands. The
fifth defendant also, acting independently, put up bunds on her land to prevent
the flow of water to her land. As a result of the act of these five defendants,
the rainwater now flowed to the plaintiff’s land causing damage to them. The
plaintiffs requested for a mandatory injunction to demolish the bunds and to
fill up the trench on the defendants’ lands, for a permanent injunction
preventing them from making bunds or making such trenches and also for
damages amounting to Rs. 300 for the loss already caused due to the flow of
the water to their land.

 Judgement

The High Court held that the owner of land on or near a river has a right to
build a fence upon his own ground to prevent damage to his ground to prevent
damage to his ground by the overflow of river, even though as a result of the
same, the overflowing water is diverted to the neighbour’s land and causes
damage. This being a clear case of damnum sine injuria, the defendants were
not liable for the harm to the plaintiffs.
The law permits the protection of one’s property from apprehended danger by
preventing the entrance of flood-water to one’s land even though such an
actcauses damage to neighbours. But if the flood-water has already entered
one’s land, the law does not permit him to cast it upon adjoining land.
7

7.
6
AIR 1978 Guj 13, (1977) GLR 424
7
A.I.R. 1958 A.P. 103; Lagan Navigation Co. v. Lamberg Bleaching Dyeing and Finishing Co, (1927) A.C. 226
8. Vishnu datt v. Board of High School & Intermediate education, U.P.,

 Facts

The plaintiff was an intermediate student in Anglo Sanskrit College, Mawana,

defendant No. 5 in 1961-62. He was detained on the ground of short
attendance. He challenged the action of the authorities by means of a regular
suit which although dismissed by the trial Court was decreed on appeal. It was
held by the court that the college authorities had not maintained the attendance
register in accordance with regulations. While the regulations required that
attendance should be recorded for each lecture the College authorities
recorded attendance only twice in the day, once in the morning and again after
the mid-day recess. On this ground the action of the authorities in detaining
the plaintiff-appellant on the ground of shortage of attendance was held to be
illegal and a declaration was made in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and the
relief of injunction was also granted. He had already been allowed to appear at
the examination under an interim order of the Court but his result was not
directed to be declared. Ultimately when the result was declared in pursuance
of the said decree of the Court one year had already passed. He was declared
as having passed in the Second Division. The plaintiff thus suffered a loss of
one year in his studies. He thereafter brought the present suit for compensation
in respect of the injury thus suffered. He claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as
compensation. The suit was filed against the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, the State of U. P., the District Inspector of Schools
and also against the Principal of the College (who had since retired) and
against the College as well.

 Judgements

The suit has been dismissed by both the courts below on the ground that the
same was not maintainable. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The
learned counsel has contended that the Principal of the College had
undoubtedly failed to comply with the regulations of the Board in regard to
maintenance of attendance register, as held in the earlier suit. In view of the
judgment in the earlier suit, which operates as res judicata, it has to be
assumed that the Principal did not maintain the attendance register in
accordance with the regulations. It is also correct that the plaintiff did suffer a
loss of one year on, account of his having been detained. This does not
however lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to maintain an
action for compensation. Every breach of a legal provision does not give rise
to an action in Tort. The provision in the re- gulations regarding the form of
 maintainance of attendance register did not, for the purposes of law of Torts,
entail a "duty", on the part of the Principal towards the students, a breach of
which would be actionable. The mere fact that the Principal misinterpreted the
regulations in that behalf does not lead to the conclusion that he committed an
actionable wrong. If the Principal's action was ultra vires the appellant has
already secured the reliefs admissible, viz., those of declaration and injunction.
It is unfortunate that due to the passage of time in the decision of his earlier
suit his success in 8the litigation did not prove very fruitful. However, the
present claim of the plaintiff does not fall under any of the heads of torts
recognised in common law. The statutory provisions do not provide for any
compensation in the circumstances mentioned above.  I thus find no force in
this appeal which is hereby dismissed. But in the circumstances the parties
shall bear their own costs in this Court.

9. Bradford corporation v. Pickles (1895)

 Facts

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.

 Judgement

The plaintiffs could have no property in the water until it came on their land
and they collected it, and ‘if the owner of the adjoining land is in a situation in
which an act of his, lawfully done on his own land, may divert the water
which would otherwise go into the possession of this trading company, I see
no reason why he should not insist on their purchasing his interest from which
this trading company desires to make profit.’ 
The exercise of a legal right is not an unlawful abuse of that right merely by
reason of a predominant improper or ulterior purpose.9

8
A.I.R. 1981 ALL. 46.
9
A.C. (1895) 587.
10.Pagadala Narasimham v. The Commissioner and Special Officer, Nellore
Municipality

 Facts

The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The suit was filed by the
plaintiff as an indigent person. The suit was filed was filed claiming damages of
Rs. 50,000/- against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, viz., the Commissioner and
Special Officer of Nellore Municipality and the Superintendent of Police, Nellore.
he 3rd defendant, viz., the Nellore Finance Corporation was impleaded later on
and it is not a party in this appeal. The suit was filed on the allegations that the
plaintiff was the owner of the bus APA 8320 and while it was kept for repairs
near the workshop at Santi Reddy Road, Nellore, the Municipal and the Police
Officials removed the same on the evening of 14.7.1976 on the ground that it was
causing obstruction on the public road and kept it in the compound of the
Collectorate Building near the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court.
It is the case of the plaintiff that when he approached the Municipal Officials for
the release of the vehicle they advised him to contact the Traffic Police Officials
and when he approached the concerned Police Station, he was directed to contact
the Municipal Authorities. No case was filed and, therefore he had no opportunity
to get the vehicle released from the Court. The Regional Transport Authority
cancelled the permit on 13.4.1977 in view of his inability to put the bus on the
route. The bus was under hire-purchase agreement with the 3rd defendant
Corporation. The 3rd defendant who is the financier of the bus impleaded only
and got the vehicle auctioned for Rs. 10,920/-. The plaintiff estimated the
damages caused on account of the illegal seizure and detention of the bus at Rs.
50,000/- on various counts. The defendants have taken the stand that the suit itself
was not maintainable for failure to implead the proper parties. The 1st defendant
municipality had denied the seizure of the vehicle. The municipality contended
that on the request of the Town Traffic Sub-Inspector, the municipal tractor and
coolies were sent for assisting him in the removal of the vehicle which was
causing obstruction on the public road. The 1st defendant denied that any petition
was filed or representation made by the plaintiff for the release of the vehicle. The
2nd defend ant denied the knowledge of removal of the plaintiff's bus on
14.7.1976. He went to the extent of denying the factum of giving assistance by the
municipality in connection with the removal of the vehicle. He also denied that
the plaintiff approached Town Police Station for the release of the vehicle. The
2nd defendant went on to say in the written statement that the Municipal
 Authorities appear to have removed the vehicle as it was causing inconvenience
to the public. Itwaskept in the premises of the Collector's office near the
Magistrate's Court. It was not seized by any authority whatsoever. It was merely
removed from the public road as it was an obstruction to the traffic and the same
was kept at the Collector's office building. The plaintiff was always at liberty to
take custody of the saidvehicle. The 2nd defendant denied that any request was
made by the Traffic Sub-Inspector to the Municipal Authorities to send the tractor
and coolies for the removal of obstruction. The 2nd defendant then blamed the
plaintiff for not taking necessary steps for the release of the vehicle and allowing
it to remain in the Collector's office compound for such a long time.

 Judgement

It was also contended that the suit for damages against the police officials who
are discharging sovereign functions of the State was not maintainable. The
learned Additional District Judge, on a consideration of the evidence and the
probabilities, gave the following findings: (1) The suit is not maintainable
against the 1st defendant and the suit should have been filed against the
Municipal Council, Nellore, represented by the Commissioner and Special
Officer, Nellore. (2) The suit is not maintainable against the 2nd defendant as
well in view of the provisions of Sections 79 and 80, Civil Procedure Code. If
a suit has to be filed alleging tortious acts against the Police Officials in the
course of discharge of their duties and for recovery of damages, the State of
Andhra Pradesh should have been impleaded as a necessary party. 10

11. Jethu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

 Facts
The facts, are that the appellant-writ petitioner had passed the Prathma
Examination in the year 1983 from the Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad.

10
A.I.R. 1994 A.P.21.
 He was appointed as Laboratory Attendant under the respondents vide order
dated 25.3.1980 of the Superintendent, Associated Groups of Hospitals,
Jodhpur and according to him, his service in the said post was confirmed in
the year 1984.

The appellant- writ petitioner claimed that in view of his efficiency and
capability, though his substantive post was Laboratory Attendant, he used to
be entrusted with the works of Laboratory Technician, a higher post.

He has averred that in fact he had been entrusted with the responsibility of the
said post from 7.2.1984 and had been shifted to Orthopaedic department of
M.G.Hospital, Jodhpur and for all practical purposes, has been working full-
fledged as such since the year 1987.

In between, the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules,

1965 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”.) had been framed and
the 2 same was amended in the year 1982.

In terms of the Rules, the conditions of eligibility for appointment to the post
of Laboratory Technician were prescribed as hereinbelow:- (a) Academic
Qualification- A pass of Secondary or its equivalent examination.

(b) Nine (9) months Training Certificate from Institution recognized by the
Government.

While the matter rested at that, the Director, Medical and Health Services
(Welfare).Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur issued a notification on 11.7.1990
soliciting application forms from the eligible candidates for undertaking
training for Laboratory Technician.

It was inter-alia mentioned therein that a person, who had passed the
secondary examination could apply and that preference would be accorded to
those who had passed the said examination with Science subjects i.e.Physics,
Chemistry and Biology.

Though the appellant-writ petitioner did apply, he was not admitted to the
CouRs.on the ground that he did not possess the necessary qualification.

He being aggrieved approached this Court by filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition

No.3464/90 and in terms of the interim order passed therein, he was allowed
to participate in the training which he duly completed.

 Judgement

There being no violation of right to trade of the petitioner, the Rajasthan High
Court held that as per the principle of “damnum sine injuria” , damage
resulting to the petitioner there from, was not actionable.11

11
A.I.R. 2014 Raj. 157.
 Conclusion

So hereby we conclude, that the rule of law is that the exercise of an ordinary
right is no wrong even if it causes damage. A man’s use of land, such building
a on it is an action to which he is entitled. He is at liberty to build on his land
and unless the other person has right to stop him from doing so (such as
interference which is easementary right) the inconvenience must be suffered.
As a price of our free action, which the law permits, the other person must
abide by some measure of inconvenience from equal freedom of one’s
neighbour. This is what the phrase Damnum Sine Injuria means.
 Bibliography
 Law of torts by RK Bangia
 www.lawhandbookorg.au.in
 www.legalindia.com
 http://www.legalservicesindia.com
 http://en.wikipedia.org