CONSTITUENT OF A TORT

 INJURIA SUNE DAMNO

Injuria means infringement of the legal right or unauthorised interference with the right conferred by the law. Damnum means substantial harm, loss or damage in respect of money, comfort, health or the like. 

Thus Injuria sine damno means violation of the legal right without causing any substantial harm, loss or damage to the plaintiff. In such cases there is no need to prove that as a consequence of an act, tye plaintiff has suffered any harm. The only thing which is to be proved is that the plaintiff's legal right has been violated. 

Ashby v. White, is a landmark case which is needed to be mentioned while understanding about Injuria sine damno. In this case the defendant, a polling officer, didn't let the plaintiff cast his vote. Although there was no substantial harm to the plaintiff as the candidate whom the plaintiff wanted to vote won the election, but the Holt, CJ. observed that if the plaintiff has the right, he must have the necessary means to maintain it. No infringement of right conferred by law must be went unredressed. 

Similarly in Bhim Singh v. State of J. & K., the plaintiff, a M.L.A., was arrested on his way to assembly and was even not presented before the megistrate in the required time. The court in this case held that although no damage has happened to the plaintiff, but his legal right to attend the assembly sessions is unreasonably violated, and thus the court awarded the plaintiff exemplary damages amounting to Rs. 50,000. 

DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

It means damage which is not coupled with the unauthorised interference with the legal right of the other person. However substantial the damage may be, it will not be actionable in the court unless there is also the violation of the legal right of the plaintiff. Even though the damage is intentional, it will not be actionable as long as the other party is exercising the legal right (Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills). 

Gloucester Grammar School case, is the landmark case which deals with Damnum sine injuria. In this case the defendant, a schoolmaster, set up his own rival school to that of the plaintiffs. Due to the competition the plaintiff was forced to reduce its fees from 40 pence to 12 pence. The court in this case held, that although there is a damage, but there is no infringement of the legal right of the plaintiff. Moreover the act of the defendant is within the capacity of his rights conferred by law. Similar was held in Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow and Co.

In Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir, the plaintiff appealed the court for permanent stay on the movie, "Jai Santoshi Maa" in which he contended that hindu goddesses were shown being jealous and ridiculed. The court observed that hurt to religious feeling is not recognised as legal wrong. Moreover no person can enforce his religious views on others, thus dismissing the plea for injunction. 

Andhra Pradesh High Court also applied this maxim in P. Seetharamyya v. Mahalakshamma, where the plaintiff contended that all the defendant have build the bunds around their land due to which the rainwater now flows to plaintiff's land and caused damage. The court held that fencing one's own land is withing the legal right of a person. Thus they by exercising their legal right cannot be held liable for the damge caused to the plaintiff. 

In Dickson v. Reuter's Telegram Co., the court held that telegram company ows the dury towards the sender and not towards the recipient. 

Vishnu Datt v. Board of H.S. & Intermediate Education, U.P., is a landmark judgement which needs to be remembered in pegion whole theory concept.

In Bradford Corporation (Mayor of) v. Pickles, the plaintiff derives the water from the adjoining land of the defendant which was at the higher level. The defendant sank an shaft over his land which stops the flow of water to the plaintiff's land. The court in this case went to the extent of stating that even if the action of the defendant, who was exercising his legal right, are malicious and mischievous, he could not be held liable untill it is proved that the plaintiff in this case are entitled to that flow of water and the defendant has no right to do what he is doing. 

Similar was the position in Town area committee was Prabhu Dayal and Narasimhan v. The Commissioner and Special Officer, Nellore Municipality, where the court held that illegal act of the plaintiff can be corrected by the legal authorities and the damages if so caused will not be actionable. 

Other examples of this maxim are defamatory statement made on the privileged occasions, damaged caused under the act of necessity or to prevent the greater harm, or the damage being too remote.