(10m) SEE NOTES

MODULES – 05

Legal rights, duties, possession, title etc..

Legal rights: They are entitlements granted by law to individuals or groups, enforceable by legal
authority, ensuring protection, freedom, or privileges under a given legal system. There is a co-
relation between rights and duties.

Definitions:-

1. Salmond: defines right as an interest recognized by a rule. It is an interest in respect of

which there is a duty and the breach/disregard of which is wrong.
2. John Austin: observed, A party has a right when others are legally obligated to act or
refrain from acting in a certain way toward them.
3. J. C. Grey: It is basically a kind of power, possess to ensure the obedience on the
forbearance/control their balance to do something.

Essentials of right: (4)

1. Person of inherence: A legal right belongs to a person, called the subject or owner of the
right. This owner can be uncertain, like an unborn child or society at large. Even if
undetermined, the right remains valid as long as it is recognized and protected by law.
2. Person of incidence: A legal right exists against a person with a duty to act or refrain for
the right-holder’s benefit, called the subject of the duty.
3. Title of the right: The content of a right is the act or omission that a duty-bound person
must perform for the right-holder.
4. Subject of the right: When a person owes the duty to do or not.
5. Object of the right: On what does one possess the right?

Theories of rights: (3)

1. Will theory: The will theory of legal rights asserts that rights are inherent to human will,
allowing individuals to express their will over an object. This theory acknowledges that
rights come with limitations due to the rights of others, ensuring that no one is completely
free to act as they wish. Legal rights involve obligations on others to act or refrain from
actions, and they are protected by social and legal authority, emphasizing social solidarity
over individual will.
2. Interest theory: The Interest Theory posits that a legal right is a legally protected
interest, focusing on the protection of human interests rather than individual will. Critics
argue this view overlooks the necessity of state recognition for a legal right. A legal right
is seen as a means to protect interests, combining the elements of will and interest. Thus,
a sound understanding of legal rights incorporates both the power to realize interests and
their protection under the law.
3. Protection theory: The totalitarian view denies the existence of individual legal rights,
asserting that all rights belong to the omnipotent State. However, this perspective has
been rejected in modern democratic welfare States, where individual rights are
recognized as essential and independent from state authority.

Classification of legal rights:

1. Perfect and Imperfect rights: A perfect right is recognized and enforceable by law,
allowing legal action to be taken if violated. In contrast, an imperfect right is
acknowledged but not enforceable, such as a time-barred debt, which remains a valid
claim but cannot be recovered in court. Imperfect rights can sometimes be converted into
perfect rights through actions like payment of penalties or fresh promises, restoring their
enforceability. Perfect Rights: Right to recover a valid loan in court, Right to claim
damages for breach of contract. Imperfect Rights:Time-barred debt that cannot be
enforced in court.
2. Positive and Negative rights: A positive right requires others to take action, benefiting
the right-holder, such as a right to compensation. Negative right imposes a duty on others
to refrain from interference, like the right to ownership or reputation. Key differences
include: positive rights demand action, while negative rights require forbearance; positive
rights seek benefits, whereas negative rights aim to protect existing interests.
3. Antecedent and Remedial Right: An antecedent right exists independently of any
wrongdoing and grants specific advantages, such as a purchaser's right over bought goods.
A remedial right arises only when an antecedent right is violated, typically involving
compensation or relief for that violation. Antecedent rights can be classified as rights in
rem (against the world) or rights in personam (against specific individuals).
4. Rights in rem and Rights in personam: A right in rem is a real right that can be
enforced against the world at large, imposing a general duty on others, such as the right to
peacefully occupy one’s land. A right in personam is a personal right that is enforceable
only against specific individuals, such as the right to receive rent from a tenant. Generally,
real rights are negative, while personal rights are often positive, though some exceptions
exist.
5. Proprietary and personal rights: Proprietary rights pertain to a person's estate, assets,
and property, holding economic value, such as money, land, and debts. personal rights
focus on individual well-being and status, lacking monetary value, like the right to
reputation or personal liberty. Proprietary rights are alienable and inheritable, while
personal rights are generally non-alienable and non-inheritable. Additionally, proprietary
rights tend to be more static compared to the dynamic nature of personal rights.
6. Rights in re propria and Rights in re aliena: it refer to ownership over one's own
property, while rights in re aliena pertain to rights over someone else's property, often
referred to as encumbrances. The right of dominium is the most absolute ownership right.
Rights in re aliena limit the owner's rights, such as mortgages or leases. Examples of
encumbrances include leases (possession rights), servitudes (limited use rights), securities
(creditor rights), and trusts (equitable obligations for the benefit of others).
7. Principal and Accessory Rights: Principal rights exist independently and are the
primary legal entitlements, such as the right to recover a debt. Accessory rights are
ancillary to principal rights, enhancing or securing them, like a mortgage securing the
 debt. For example, the right of way on adjacent land complements the principal ownership
of the land, while rent and covenants in a lease are accessory to the landlord's ownership.
Accessory rights depend on principal rights for their validity.
8. Primary and Sanctioning Rights: Primary rights, also known as antecedent or
substantive rights, exist independently and originate from legal entitlements, such as the
right not to be assaulted or a promisee's right to enforce a contract. Sanctioning rights or
remedial rights, arise from violations of primary rights, allowing the aggrieved party to
claim damages. Sanctioning rights are generally in personam, focusing on specific
violators, and may lead to civil actions for compensation or restitution, rather than
criminal prosecution.
9. Legal and Equitable Right: Legal rights originate from common law and are recognized
by common law courts, while equitable rights arise from principles of fairness and were
historically recognized by courts of equity. Although the Judicature Act of 1873 merged
these systems, distinctions persist. Legal rights take precedence over equitable rights in
case of conflict, provided the legal right is acquired for value and without notice of prior
equity. Indian law does not differentiate between legal and equitable rights, applying
principles of equity within its legal framework.
10. Vested and Contingent Rights: A vested right occurs when all necessary events for its
establishment have happened, creating an immediate, transferable, and heritable interest.
A contingent right exists when not all required events have occurred, meaning it does not
create an immediate interest and can be defeated. For example, a property acquired by
valid deed is vested, while a right conditioned on reaching a certain age is contingent.
11. Public and Private Rights: Public rights are held by individuals as members of the
community, enforced by the State for the public interest, such as the right to avoid
mandatory military service. Private rights concern individual relationships, like the right
not to be assaulted. Violations of public rights are public wrongs (crimes), while private
rights violations are private wrongs (civil injuries or torts).
12. Servient and Dominent Rights: Servient rights are those subject to encumbrances, while
dominant rights benefit from these encumbrances. The property benefiting from the right
is the dominant heritage, and its owner is the dominant owner. Conversely, the property
burdened by the right is the servient heritage, with its owner being the servient owner. For
example, a right of way over another’s land illustrates this relationship.

Co – relation of Rights and Duties: Rights and duties are interrelated, reflecting the same facts
from opposite perspectives. A right implies that others must actively or passively fulfill the right-
holder's wishes, enforced by the State as legal duties or upheld by societal norms as moral duties.
Some duties, like those to oneself, society, or animals, are considered absolute, lacking
corresponding rights. Rights are interests protected by law through duties imposed on others,
ensuring control with the State's support.

(5m) Legal Duties: A duty is an obligatory act, i.e, it is an act the opposite of which would be
wrong. Thus duties and wrongs are generally co-related. The commission of a wrong is the
breach of duty and the performance of a duty is avoidance of wrong.
Kinds of Duties: (2)

1. Moral Duties

Moral duties are governed by societal norms, not law. For example, refraining from offensive
curiosity about a neighbor is a moral duty but not legally enforced.

2. Legal Duties

Legal duties are enforced by law, irrespective of moral considerations. For instance, not selling
adulterated milk is a legal duty but not a moral one.

Both Moral and Legal Duties: Some duties, like not stealing, are both moral and legal. The law
ensures compliance with legal duties or penalizes violations.

Classification of Legal Duties:

1. Positive and Negative Duties:

Positive Duties: Require performing an act, such as paying off a debt. Fulfillment extinguishes
both the duty and the corresponding right.

Negative Duties: Require refraining from an act, such as not interfering with another's land.
Fulfillment does not extinguish the duty, as it is ongoing.

2. Primary and Secondary Duties:

Primary Duties: Independent obligations that exist on their own, such as refraining from
causing personal injury to another.

Secondary Duties: Dependent obligations that arise to enforce primary duties, such as the duty
to pay damages for injury. They are also known as sanctioning or remedial duties.

3. Absolute and Relative Duties:

Absolute Duties: Obligations owed solely to the State, where breaches constitute crimes
punishable by law. Examples include duties to God or the State, and the duty not to commit
suicide.

Relative Duties: Obligations owed to individuals other than the State, where breaches result in
civil injuries that can be remedied through compensation or restitution.
(10m) POSSESSION

Possession is a complex legal concept with significant implications, as it serves as prima facie
evidence of ownership. The possessor is presumed the owner, and even wrongful possessors hold
good title against all except the true owner. Possession is crucial for ownership acquisition, as
seen in laws related to pledges.

Nature of Possession: Possession is fundamental to human existence and legal relations, serving
as prima facie evidence of ownership. It involves exclusive use and control, allowing possessors
rights against all except true owners. Possession can transfer ownership and is essential in legal
contexts, distinguishing between possession with and without title.

Meaning of the term “possession”:

Pollock: Possession is defined as having physical control over an object.

Salmond: Possession involves two elements: (1) a claim to exclusive use (animus possidendi)
and (2) actual physical control over the object (corpus possidendi).

Bentham: Defining possession recalls the mental image necessary to decide which party has
control over a thing.

Savigny: The essence of corporeal possession lies in physical power to exclude others and retain
possession of the object.

Ihering: Legal possession does not depend on intention but rather on how the claim to
possession is made.

Holmes: To gain possession, one must have a specific physical relation to the object and intent
regarding that possession.

Pollock (reiterated): A person is said to possess something when they have apparent control
over it and can exclude others.

Possession in Law: Possession in law, or de jure possession, is protected for two main reasons:
it confers legal rights on the possessor and penalizes those who interfere with it. Courts first
assess whether the plaintiff had actual possession, focusing on relative titles rather than the best
title among parties.

Cases:

1. Bridges v. Hawkesworth - The Court ruled that notes found on a shop floor belonged to
the finder, not the shopkeeper, citing lack of corpus or animus by the shopkeeper. Critics
argue the shopkeeper had sufficient control and intent for legal possession.
 2. R v. Riley (Lamb case) - The accused unknowingly drove away the prosecutor's sheep
with his own. After selling the entire flock, he was deemed to have taken possession of
the prosecutor's sheep.
3. R. v. Harding - The accused was convicted of stealing a raincoat from a maid-servant,
who had possession against the thief but not against her employer, as she held mere
custody.
4. R. v. Chissers - A person who took cloth from a shop to see and then ran away was
convicted of larceny, as the court ruled he did not gain possession; it remained with the
shopkeeper.

Elements of Possession

According to legal scholars, possession requires two essential elements:

corpus (effective control over the item) and

animus (intention to possess as an owner).

While some argue animus isn't always necessary, others maintain both elements are crucial for
legal possession.

1. Corpus Possessionis:

i. Possessor's physical relation to the object defined.

ii. The possessor's relationship to the outside world.

Physical contact with a thing indicates control, suggesting others will not interfere with the
possessor's right to use it.

This assurance of non- interference can be secured in any of the following ways:-

1. Physical power of the possessor: The possessor's physical power ensures the use of the
item and discourages interference from others.
2. Personal presence of the possessor: Mere presence can establish possession, even if the
possessor lacks strength to resist interference.
3. Secrecy: Hiding an item effectively excludes external interference and secures the
possessor's claim.
4. Respect for rightful claims: Societal respect for rightful claims generally prevents
interference with the legal possession of individuals.
5. Protection from accessory possession: Possession of one object may confer rights to
related items, though this can vary by case law.
6. Manifestation of animus domini: Publicly using an item establishes a visible claim,
reinforcing the legitimacy of possession.
Possession is not lost due to the possessor's temporary absence. For example, a person fishing
does not gain possession until the fish are caught, while ownership of a pet dog remains despite
its freedom, as corpus and animus persist.

2. Animus Possidendi: Mere juxtaposition does not equate to possession; true possession
requires the intention to control (animus). This involves believing oneself as the rightful
owner and consciously excluding others from interference.

Key considerations for animus in legal possession include:

(i) Right or Wrong Animus: Possession can be wrongful, as in a thief's case, who possesses
stolen items as effectively as their rightful owner.

(ii) Exclusive Claim: Possessors must intend to exclude others from use, though not always
absolutely, e.g., land with public right of way remains in possession.

(iii) No Ownership Claim Needed: Legal possession exists without ownership intention, e.g., a
pledgee possesses goods solely as security for a debt repayment.

(iv) Possession on Behalf of Another: Agents, servants, or trustees possess items for another's
benefit, not for their personal use.

(v) General Animus: Possession covers unknown specifics, like books in a library or uncounted
fish in a net.

Case: N.N. Majumdar v. State: The Calcutta High Court ruled that possession under the Arms
Act requires proven animus, not just corpus. Mere recovery of a pistol near the accused doesn’t
establish possession without intent, rejecting the prosecution's Section 27 claim.

Kinds of Possession:

1. Corporeal and Incorporeal Possession: Corporeal possession refers to the possession

of tangible things like land or movables, where the possessor has the power to exclude
interference and enjoy the object at will, even without using it. Incorporeal possession
pertains to intangible rights like copyright or trademarks, requiring continuous use to
assert control. Unlike corporeal possession, incorporeal possession can be extinguished
by non-use.

Roman law terms these as possessio corporis and possessio juris, with some jurists arguing
incorporeal possession lacks real possession's requisites.

2. Mediate and Immediate Possession: Mediate possession refers to possessing

something through another, such as a master possessing through a servant or tenant. It
allows two parties to have possession simultaneously but only against third parties, not
each other. Critics argue that agents or servants only have custody, lacking animus
possidendi. Immediate possession is direct possession without intermediaries, like
 owning a purchased book. English law rejects mediate possession, allowing only one
exclusive possessor, while German law explicitly recognizes both types.
3. Quasi-Possession: It involves control over advantages short of ownership, like a right of
way. Its rules align with regular possession.
4. Concurrent or Duplicate Possession: It arises when non-adverse claims coexist, unlike
English civil law, which views exclusiveness as essential. Salmond identifies three forms:

1. Mediate and Immediate Possession: E.g., a servant’s immediate possession and a

master’s mediate possession.
2. Shared Possession: Co-owners possess jointly (compossessio in Roman law).
3. Corporeal and Incorporeal Possession: E.g., landowner’s corporeal possession with
another’s incorporeal right of way.

5. Constructive Possession: It refers to the power and intention to control property without
actual presence. For example, delivering keys to a building can imply constructive
possession of its contents. However, some argue that delivering keys signifies actual
possession, as it grants control over the property.
6. Adverse Possession: Adverse possession occurs when a person initially holding land for
another claims ownership after continuous, peaceful possession for a prescribed period.
Three key elements are required: continuity, adequate publicity, and peaceful,
undisturbed possession, leading to the extinguishment of the original owner's title.

Modes of Acquisition of Possession

Possession requires both corpus and animus; losing either destroys it.

(1) By taking.

(2) By delivery.

(3) By operation of law.

1. By taking: Taking refers to acquiring possession without the previous owner's consent, which
can be rightful or wrongful. It can be original when the object has no owner or derivative when
taking from an existing owner, as in cases of rightful or wrongful seizure of property.

2. By Delivery: Acquisition of possession by delivery occurs when a person gains possession

with the consent of the previous owner. There are two types of delivery:

1. Actual Delivery: Immediate transfer of possession, such as in sales or loans, where the
item is physically transferred from one person to another.
2. Constructive Delivery: No physical transfer occurs; instead, mediate possession is
transferred. It has three subtypes:
o Traditio Brevi Manu: Mediate possession is surrendered to someone already in
immediate possession (e.g., a watchmaker repairing a watch).
 o Constitutum Possessorium: Mediate possession is retained by the transferor
while immediate possession is transferred to the buyer (e.g., renting a car).
o Attornment: Mediate possession is transferred with immediate possession held
by a third party (e.g., goods in a warehouse sold to a new owner).

3. By operation of Law: Possession can be obtained by operation of law, such as through

inheritance after a person's death. Long, continuous adverse possession for twelve years
leads to the extinction of the true owner's title, a process known as prescription, which
creates rights for the possessor and negates the rights of the true owner.

(10m) LEGAL PERSONALITY

The law regulates relationships between individuals, determining legality based on

reasonableness. Rights and duties establish legal standards, with liability for unlawful acts
enforced through sanctions, emphasizing the importance of legal personality.

Origin: The term 'person' originates from the Latin "persona," referring to an actor's mask.
Initially denoting roles, it evolved to mean a being capable of rights and duties. Law recognizes
two types of persons: natural (human beings) and artificial (entities like corporations). While
some restrict personality to humans, legal personality also includes non-human entities,
acknowledging their rights and duties, thus facilitating clearer legal relations in society.

Legal personality id fiction of law: Artificial personality is a legal fiction that treats non-living
entities, like corporations or idols, as legal persons, allowing them to hold rights, duties, and
liabilities despite lacking natural personhood.

Definition:

1. Salmond views a person as any being recognized by law as capable of holding rights or
duties, regardless of whether they are human.
2. Gray describes a person as an entity capable of holding rights and duties, including non-
human entities, acknowledging that some may have duties but no rights.
3. G. W. Paton states that legal personality allows rights to be vested in non-human entities,
including property or institutions, conferring legal status akin to natural persons.

Legal status of Unborn Person:

The law grants legal personality to unborn children, treating them as already born for various
purposes. They can receive gifts and hold ownership (en ventre sa mère). Under Hindu law, they
are included in inheritance, but if they do not survive, their share is divided among living heirs.

Under the Indian Penal Code, Section 312, 313 & 316 – injury to a child in womb is a punishable
offence.

Case 1: R v. shepherd (1919) - Obstructing a safe delivery of a child is considered a criminal

offense under the law.
Thus, a child in mother’s womb is entitled for legal protection under the criminal law.

The Rule Against Perpetuities is a legal principle preventing the indefinite control of property
interests. It restricts future interests from being valid unless they vest within a specific
timeframe, typically within 21 years after the death of a relevant measuring life. This rule
ensures property remains marketable and not tied up indefinitely.

Prenatal existence of a child is recognized legally, allowing them to claim damages for pre-natal
injuries once born. Rights conferred on unborn children are contingent on live birth,
transforming into vested rights afterward. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 protects the
proprietary rights of unborn persons, ensuring their interests are safeguarded against potential
alienation by their owners. Civil action will be “locus Standi”

Canadian law also recognizes the legal personality of the unborn person.

Case 1: Montreal Tramways Co. v. Leveille (1933)

A female infant claimed damages against a tramway company for deformities caused by the
defendant's negligence while she was in her mother's womb. The court awarded damages.

Case 2: Walker v. Great North Railway Co. (1890)

The Irish Court denied damages to an infant claiming injuries from a railway collision while in
the womb, ruling that the railway company owed no duty of care to an unknown person.
However, the Court did not explicitly state that unborn children cannot claim damages for
personal harm.

English law confirms the legal personality of unborn persons by allowing pregnant women
sentenced to death to be respited until childbirth. While some argue unborn children lack rights,
many legal systems protect the contingent rights of unborn children, recognizing their legal
status before birth.

Legal status of dead person:

Salmond notes that a person's legal personality begins at birth and ends at death, meaning the
deceased have no rights or duties. Although a corpse isn't considered property, modern law
permits organ donation. Legal concerns extend beyond death regarding a deceased's body,
reputation, and estate. While no one owns a dead person's body, the law makes sure it is buried
or cremated respectfully.

1. The dead person is to be buried as per his religious rituals :

Case 1: R v. Prince (1884): Under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, defamation occurs if a
false statement about a deceased person harms their reputation and is intended to hurt the
feelings of their family or close relatives.
Case 2: Ashray Adhikar Abhiyan v. Union of India (2002): The Supreme Court ruled that
even a homeless person found dead on the road has the right to a decent burial or cremation
according to their religious beliefs.

2. Reputation: Section 499 of Ipc – relating to the dead person’s sentiment of the Dead
Person’s family if it is defamed is offence.

Case 1: R v. Ensor (1887): The law protects the reputation of deceased individuals by allowing
defamation claims only when it harms the interests of their living relatives, reflecting the rights
of the survivors rather than the deceased.

3. Assets: While deceased individuals are not considered legal persons, their testamentary
wishes are upheld by law. A person can establish a charitable trust for graveyard
maintenance, but a directive for personal grave maintenance is unenforceable due to the
rule against perpetuity. Charitable gifts from the deceased are legally enforceable.

Legal status of Animal

The law does not recognize animals as legal persons, viewing them as mere objects of rights and
duties. While animals have no legal rights, archaic codes imposed penalties for animal
wrongdoing. Modern law allows for the detention of trespassing animals until their owners
compensate the injured party.

In 1519, a court tried rats for damaging a farmer's fields. Although the defense argued the rats
improved soil fertility, the court rejected it, punishing the rats while ensuring their protection
from predators, especially for pregnant females.

Modern law holds animal owners liable for their pets' actions due to negligence in control, rather
than vicarious liability. A wrong to an animal is not seen as a wrong to the animal itself but to its
owner or society.

The law protects animals by making cruelty an offense and recognizing valid public trusts for
specific classes of animals. For instance, a trust for maintaining a home for stray dogs and
broken-down horses is enforceable as a charitable trust.

Case1: In Re Dean, cooper Dean v. Stevens (1889): A testator's trust for maintaining horses
and hounds was deemed invalid since animals cannot be legal beneficiaries. Trustees could
follow the intent voluntarily, but noncompliance wouldn't breach trust. Duties to animals are
essentially duties to society for their welfare.

Police dogs assist in crime detection but cannot solely substantiate convictions, as their
"evidence" lacks cross-examination. This highlights that animals, despite their utility, lack legal
personality and independent rights.
 STRICT LIABILITY

The principle of strict liability, established in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), holds that a person
who keeps hazardous substances on their premises is liable if those substances escape and cause
harm, regardless of negligence. In this case, Fletcher built a reservoir that accidentally flooded
Rylands' coal mines. The court ruled Fletcher liable for the escape of water, emphasizing that
anyone maintaining dangerous substances assumes responsibility for potential harm. This
principle requires three conditions: hazardous material, its escape, and resulting damage. Strict
liability applies even without negligence, as the risk arises from keeping such dangerous
substances.

Essentials of Strict Liability:

1. Dangerous Substances: A defendant is strictly liable if a "dangerous" substance escapes

their premises. Dangerous substances are defined as those that can cause harm or
mischief upon escaping, including explosives, toxic gases, and electricity. Such
substances impose liability regardless of negligence or intent.
2. Escape: For strict liability to apply, the dangerous material must escape from the
defendant's premises and be out of their control. For example, if poisonous leaves from
the defendant's property harm the plaintiff's cattle, the defendant is liable; if the cattle
enter the defendant's property, they are not liable.

Case1: Reads v. Lyons & Co.: it was held that if there is no escape, the defendant cannot be
held liable.

3. Non – Natural Use: For strict liability to apply, there must be a non-natural use of land.
In Rylands v. Fletcher, storing water for milling was deemed non-natural, while
domestic water use is natural. Activities like cooking gas supply or a fireplace fire are
considered natural; hence, the defendant would not be liable for resulting damages.

These three conditions need to be fulfilled/ satisfied simultaneously to constitute a Strict liability.

Exceptions to the rule of strict liability:

1. Plaintiff's Fault: If the plaintiff is at fault, the defendant won't be liable for damages. In
Ponting v. Noakes, the plaintiff's horse died after intruding onto the defendant's property
and eating poisonous leaves. The court ruled that the defendant was not strictly liable due
to the wrongful intrusion.
2. Act of God: An "act of God" refers to events beyond human control, occurring due to
natural causes. If a dangerous substance escapes due to such unforeseen events, the
defendant is not liable for any resulting losses.
3. Act of the Third Party: The rule does not apply when damage results from a third
party's actions, as they are not under the defendant's control. However, if the defendant
could foresee the third party's actions, they must take precautions to avoid liability, as
seen in Box v Jubb.
 4. Consent of the Plaintiff: Under the principle of volenti non fit injuria, if A's water
source causes damage to neighbor B, A is not liable, as B voluntarily accepted the risk of
such damage.

DAMNUM SINE INJURIA & INJURIA SINE DAMNUM

amnum/Damno means substantial harm, loss

or damage with respect to the money,
health, etc.
Injuria means an infringement of a right given
by the law to the plaintiff.
Sine means without.
These 2 maxims fall under the category of
qualified rights, & in the cases of qualified
rights there is no presumption of damages and
the violation of such rights is actionable
only on the proof of damages.
amnum/Damno means substantial harm, loss
or damage with respect to the money,
health, etc.
Injuria means an infringement of a right given
by the law to the plaintiff.
Sine means without.
These 2 maxims fall under the category of
qualified rights, & in the cases of qualified
rights there is no presumption of damages and
the violation of such rights is actionable
only on the proof of damages.
amnum/Damno means substantial harm, loss
or damage with respect to the money,
health, etc.
Injuria means an infringement of a right given
by the law to the plaintiff.
Sine means without.
These 2 maxims fall under the category of
qualified rights, & in the cases of qualified
rights there is no presumption of damages and
the violation of such rights is actionable
only on the proof of damages.

DAMNUM SINE INJURIA & INJURIA SINE

DAMNUM
Damnum/Damno means substantial harm, loss
or damage with respect to the money,
health, etc.
Injuria means an infringement of a right given
by the law to the plaintiff.
Sine means without.
These 2 maxims fall under the category of
qualified rights, & in the cases of qualified
rights there is no presumption of damages and
the violation of such rights is actionable
only on the proof of damages.
Damnum/Damno means substantial harm, loss or damage with respect to the money. health, etc.

Injuria means an infringement of a right given by the law to the plaintiff.

Sine means without.

These 2 maxims fall under the category of qualified rights, & in the cases of qualified rights
there is no presumption of damages and the violation of such rights is actionable only on the
proof of damages.

Damnum Sine Injuria

It means damage without legal injury. No action lies if no legal right of the plaintiff is infringed,
even if harm occurs. Courts don’t compensate for moral wrongs alone.

In Mayor & Co. of Bradford v. Pickles (1895), the Bradford Corporation sued the defendant
for reducing their water supply by digging a well. The court ruled that the defendant was not
liable, as no legal right of the plaintiff had been violated.

In Gloucester Grammar School (1410), a schoolmaster established a rival school, forcing the
plaintiff to reduce fees. The court ruled that the plaintiff had no remedy for losses suffered, as the
act, though morally wrong, did not violate any legal right.

Mogul steamship co. ltd V. MC Gregor, Gow & co.: In this case, the plaintiff, an independent
ship-owner, suffered losses due to an association of ship-owners offering concessions to oust him
from competition. Despite moral wrongdoing, the defendants' actions were lawful under the
principle of damnum sine injuria, which denies remedies for moral wrongs unless legal rights are
violated. The courts held that the defendants acted within legal bounds, pursuing competition for
their trade interests without trespass or illegality. Since no legal injury was proven, the plaintiff's
claim for damages failed, affirming that lawful acts, even with harmful intentions, do not
constitute actionable legal injury.

Injuria Sine Damno

It refers to the infringement of a legal right without causing harm or loss. When a legal right is
violated, the affected person can take action, even if no injury occurs. Threats of infringement
also allow for legal recourse under the Specific Relief Act for declarations and injunctions.

For instance: A wrongfully detained person can claim substantial damages for wrongful
imprisonment, even without experiencing any consequential loss.

In Ashby v. White (1703), the plaintiff, a qualified voter, was wrongfully denied the right to
vote by the defendant. Although the plaintiff suffered no financial loss, the court held that
hindrance of rights constitutes injury, entitling him to remedies despite the absence of pecuniary
damage.

In Sain Das v. Ujagar Singh (1940), the principle of injuria sine damno was applied,
recognizing that nominal damages are awarded for unjustifiable trespass on immovable property.
However, this rule does not extend to every instance of property attachment, depending on
specific circumstances.
Injuria Sine Damno provides remedies for legal right violations, allowing action even without
harm. It refers to rights infringement that creates a cause of action despite no actual loss.

Bhim Singh Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir: Mr. Bhim Singh, an MLA, was unlawfully
arrested and detained, preventing him from attending an assembly session and exercising his
right to vote. Despite his candidate winning, this violated his constitutional rights under Articles
21 and 22. The court found the arrest malicious, with police failing to present him before a
magistrate within the required time. It awarded Rs. 50,000 as compensation for this
infringement, emphasizing the principle of injuria sine damno, where a legal right’s violation
warrants remedy even without significant loss. This case highlighted protection against misuse of
power and ensured constitutional rights were upheld.