Iniurua- Sine- Damne and
**Damnuum- S i e - I n u u o * arue
wich haS mainfai
hesetwo PaneipLES
ed he ConSeOrnenti tow orr +Re
towwleSS accomodation 0 Law of tortt.
5ine - Damno
Injurua
Inãurua- Sine Damno 1selation
O
of O Legal Tu8kt without Cousin On
hortm loss Or d a m a g e t o the Plointiff,
and wheneveT on Lega rghtis
raGht iS
is
intringed ,
the Person 'n whom +he
bru na an acfion
vasted i s entitled
abso lcte tigh
Everd pertson. has an
immunitd
ught tohiS Pruo pertato HRe
of his Person o n d t o his libercta and
intrun8ement of4his Tughtis actionable
wkich meang acHonable ti e
Pern-Se
without4 he Prroof of on damage or
loSS.
A Person ogantst whom +he Le ga
has O Couse
hove been inftun8ed
een a violation
of octon Such hat
of av ega Tught knowingV brün89
the Cause of action.
1S a leading
Ashbd vs. White InJUWa
makim
Case explaining te
thiS case Plaintit+
Stne-Damno. In
action even +houghk
Succeed
Succeed in his
the De-fendant S act did not
Cause ar
an
Cose
damage. As was Cited in h i s
the O L a l i t i e d vofeen
Plointif was O
e P e r t : amenfarva-Eteetionwich
werce held h e Defendant o return}n&
OHicer wruongtudvd rte-fuse o t a k e h e
Plontiffs vote. Te Plaintiff Sufered
no dama9e Since +he eandidote
WhCh he wiShed fo vote alrreadd
Own Te vote but Stin t e defend
,
Defendanf was held liable. It was
Coneladed thaat domage iS not merrey
Pecuniarvd butinjurg im PorttS a
damage , So when a Man is hindered
of his rughts,he is entitledto get
temedieS.
In anotherr famous CaseOf
Saun Dos vs. Uja8arr Sin@h (1.940), I t wos
held 4hat nominal damages orte usuoal
awartded e Ond tAePrunciPle of inIniuia
Sine-Domno is appicable to a-iimaybie
immoveable
been
Prropercd. when there
hoS On
un iuStifiable instruusion
on +heProPerrta in Possession of
anotter
I waS also Concluded that
the l e
Cant beextendedto ever cose of of
4tachment of Prtoperrta irtrreSpective of
atachmenf
the Cirte mStanCeS
So in total he maaxi m InJurta -
Sine- Domno rrefers to +e ruemedies
WkCh arte Prrovided in Re ortm of
damages orr Com pen Bation in violation
of and lega TUkt Sueh thaf if the
legad Tu8ht vtolafed then action ies
even i4+herte is ne hartmto another
In Otherr wortd S S ain infrüngement ef
of Wherte no loss S Suetfered
but it ereotes a Cau8e of action.
In he b maxim O+ Injuua - Sie-
Damno Holt C.J. Said +hat everd
injur importtS a damage though it
doese not CoSt he Portd one torethina.
Forc
Forc o damage not merrel Pecuniaruj u
an inJTTA wherte in-CorPorrates a domo.ge
when a. PenSon iS +herveby hinderted of
hiS ught.
** amnam -
Sine- InJuTia
Damnum -Sine-Iniuria is Legal
maximwch rrefercs to as damaßes
in wkich there 1s no intrungement Of
Ong Tego ru@ht which arte vested i a
|withthe Plainti-f.In Othert wortdSit
means. O damoe which is not Coupled
with Ln unauthori 2ed. intertertence with +he
Plaintiff
Lawtul T8ht. Since no tegal uekt
has been infruned,So acion lies inthe
cases of
of Damnum Sine -Injuta
On whiCh
w hich
this
this
on
Priniple if one
o ne
The
The 8enertaj if
is tha+
based upon
moxim 1S
Ortdnard
or Ortdinar
common
CxerciseS his imitS and wtRou
wRey.
reaSonable
limitS
within
times
*mes an
legal rught; Such
infringing others oCHon
rtiseto an
exertcise does not 8ive
ether Pertson
in Tort
in fawour of the Horm eHher m
Damaes Can be in an
loss
ort
forrm of Ond Substantiat h Orm
r e s P e c t f o the
mane
Sulterred from
Comtortt , heaHh, etc. in L
in a a
PranciPe
implied
It is
iS a
ann
ies Na?|
oble
nonemed
+hat herre arte unless
and
wron8S,
for a n morra has been
untilu ond Hal ru9ht e om/SSion
a c orr
the
infringed.Even if defendont w a s
has done b the
artant
witl not
intentiona the Courrt
As was
o n domages to the Plointitt.
Co.
cited the of MOdor and
in Case
vs. Pickles (1895), in which
of Brradford Stuit
cororation Of Brradford e a
he hat
deBendont auegina
0g0inst the
+he oct of Defendont a t o L E
Coportotion ETA d8gin8 Ot wet
inthe Odjoining land' Owned b +he
Detendant hos Cut tke underrgrcound
SuPPV Of dgEharge-om
woter
in he
CorPorto-fion's
weM, hence CouSind
monedtourud losseS Since therve
hem
was
no OdituAfeSuPPU Of waten
to dischartge forPe0PLe living hdert he
Otf the CorPorration. I
jurusdiction o was
held thot the tetetdant Defendant was
not liable Since +Led had not volafed
lego tidkt Otthe Plaintift
ang
In anotker Co9e OfGloucester
Grro mmert Sehool (1410) in whwch a School
maste Set uP a ruvel Sekoolto that
Of 4he Plaintiff and Since because
ofthe ComPetition the Plaintiff had to
redtuee thein tees and în ConceuencesS
of the Plaintitf Claimed fort ComPenSation
rom the Defendants torr the losses
Sufferred.
held thor the Piaintiff had
It wos
torr the losses Sutferted Since
no ttemed
the act hough morralld wrtong hos not
violated and tegal rCight of the Plaintiff.
Te Courtt Presumes in Cases wherre
+he legoal rught hos been infrunged thoF
|domages howeto be Oworded but in
the cases where no lego ruht hos tee
been infronaed the maxim Damntum-Sine-
Injurio - aPPlies Ond no remediesS
Owoslable fot Same
So,it Con be ruatld Said that an
0et which is lawtuvd OrT legaluj done
withou negigence and in the exercise
of o tegol rught Seh damages OS Comes
fo OnotheT therebd iS damage without
inur
