munotes®
Sign in
Home / KSLU Solved Papers / B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) / Sem 2 / Law of Torts / 2017 Jun / Solutions

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 2 Law of Torts 2017 Jun Question Paper with Solutions

KSLU Solved Question Papers

Law of Torts

Previous Year Question Paper with Solution

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 2

2017 Jun Examination

munotes.in

Mumbai

munotes.in

First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.

Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.

Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.

Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.

munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.

The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.

The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2017 Jun examination.

munotes.in ii

Contents

The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2017 Jun examination, in the order it was set.

MarksPage

munotes.in iii

MarksPage

munotes.in iv

The Paper as Set

The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2017 Jun examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.

Duration 3 hours  ·  Total marks 100  ·  13 questions answered

How to use this volume

Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.

Read the original question paper

munotes.in v

Q1Explain the maxim 'damning sine injuria' and 'injuria sine damning' with the help of decided cases.[16]

Answer

For full marks, cover: the meaning of the two Latin words injuria and damnum; the maxim injuria sine damno, why it is actionable, the torts actionable per se and the leading cases; the maxim damnum sine injuria, why it is not actionable, the situations in which it arises and the leading cases, Indian and English; the measure of damages; a table distinguishing the two; a conclusion.

Introduction

Two Latin maxims sit at the heart of the law of torts. They answer one question: does a plaintiff need to show a loss, or does he need to show that a right of his was broken? The answer the law gives is the second. A person may sue when his legal right is violated, even if he lost nothing. A person may not sue when he lost a great deal, if no legal right of his was violated.

Both maxims use the same two words, so the words must be understood first.

  1. Injuria does not mean injury in the everyday sense. It means the infringement of a legal right, a wrong recognised by law.
munotes.in 1
  1. Damnum means damage in the everyday sense: loss of money, comfort, health, custom or property.
  2. Sine means "without".

So injuria sine damno means a legal wrong without loss, and damnum sine injuria means loss without a legal wrong.

Part A: Injuria sine damno

Meaning. Injuria sine damno means the violation of a legal right without any actual loss to the plaintiff. Such a violation is actionable. Where a legal right is infringed, the law presumes damage, so the plaintiff need not prove that he is worse off.

Why the law allows the action. Some rights would be worthless if they could be broken freely whenever no money was lost. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, "where there is a right there is a remedy", requires that every legal right be protected by an action. The suit vindicates the right, that is, it marks publicly that the right exists and was broken.

The torts actionable per se. The maxim operates in the torts that are actionable per se, meaning actionable without proof of damage:

munotes.in 2
  1. trespass to land, for example walking across another's field without permission;
  2. trespass to the person, that is assault, battery and false imprisonment;
  3. trespass to goods, for example moving another's car without leave;
  4. libel, and slander in the cases where it is actionable per se.

Leading cases.

  1. Ashby v. White, decided in 1703, as described by the Supreme Court of India in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787. The plaintiff was a qualified voter. The returning officer, the defendant, wrongly refused to accept his vote. The candidate he supported was elected anyway, so his vote would have changed nothing. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had suffered no loss. The claim was upheld and damages were awarded, on the principle ubi jus ibi remedium. The right to vote was a legal right, and its denial was itself the injury. This is the classic case of a wrong without loss.
munotes.in 3
  1. Marzetti v. Williams, (1830) 1 B & Ad 415. A banker refused to honour his customer's cheque, although he held enough of the customer's money to pay it. The customer could not show any actual loss. The action was held to lie without proof of actual damage. A customer's right to have his cheque honoured is a legal right, and its breach is an injury in itself.
  2. Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494. Bhim Singh, a member of the Legislative Assembly, was arrested on his way to attend the Assembly. He was not produced before a magistrate as the Constitution requires, and was kept away from the session. By the time the Supreme Court heard the case he had been released, so no order of release was needed. The Court still held that his rights under articles 21 and 22(2) had been grossly violated. It awarded him Rs. 50,000 as compensation. This shows that "no loss" does not mean "no money": a serious violation earns substantial damages.

Part B: Damnum sine injuria

Meaning. Damnum sine injuria means actual loss suffered without the violation of any legal right. Such loss is not actionable, however large it is. The law does not give a remedy for every harm. It gives a remedy only where a legal right is infringed.

munotes.in 4

Why the law refuses an action. Ordinary life constantly causes loss to others. A new shop takes customers from an old one. A new road takes traffic from an old route. A candidate who wins a job takes it from others. If every such loss were actionable, nobody could compete, build or work. So the law protects rights, not every interest a person would like to keep.

Situations in which it arises.

  1. Lawful competition in trade or profession.
  2. The lawful use of one's own property, even if it harms a neighbour.
  3. Acts done under legal authority, such as demolishing an illegal building.
  4. Hurt feelings that the law does not protect as a right.

Leading cases.

munotes.in 5
  1. The Gloucester Grammar School case, (1410) YB 11 Hen IV, fo. 47, as set out by the Karnataka High Court in H.R. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka. A schoolmaster set up a rival school next to the plaintiff's school. Pupils left, and the plaintiff had to reduce his fees. It was held that no action lay. Competition is no ground of action, whatever loss it causes, if no legal right is infringed.
  2. Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow and Co., [1892] AC 25. A group of shipowners in the China tea trade formed an association. They cut freight rates to unprofitable levels and gave rebates to shippers who used only their ships. Their aim was to drive the plaintiff company out of the trade. The plaintiff lost heavily. The House of Lords held that no action lay. Competition, however severe, is lawful if it uses no dishonesty, intimidation or other unlawful means.
  3. Bradford Corporation v. Pickles, [1895] AC 587. Pickles sank shafts on his own land which cut off underground water percolating towards the Corporation's springs. His aim was said to be to force the Corporation to buy his land. The House of Lords held that no action lay. The Corporation had no right to percolating water, so Pickles infringed no right, whatever his motive.
munotes.in 6
  1. Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir, AIR 1978 Guj 13. The plaintiffs sought to stop the showing of the film Jai Santoshi Maa because it hurt their religious feelings. The Gujarat High Court refused an injunction. Hurt to religious feelings is not a legal right that the courts protect.
  2. Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1975 All 132. The plaintiff built sixteen shops on old foundations without the sanction the municipal law required. The Town Area Committee demolished them, and he sued for damages. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the suit. There is no right to enjoy a building constructed illegally, so the demolition caused him loss but no legal injury.

How the maxims fit the essentials of a tort

Every tort needs a wrongful act, legal damage and a remedy. The two maxims explain the second essential. "Legal damage" means injuria, not damnum. So injuria sine damno satisfies the essential even though nothing was lost, and damnum sine injuria fails it even though much was lost. Most problem questions on this topic therefore turn on one point. Which legal right of the plaintiff, if any, was infringed?

Damages under the two maxims

munotes.in 7
  1. Under injuria sine damno the court may award nominal damages, a small sum marking the violation, as in Ashby v. White. Where the violation is serious it awards substantial damages, as in Bhim Singh.
  2. Under damnum sine injuria the court awards nothing, because there is no wrong to compensate.

The two maxims compared

PointInjuria sine damnoDamnum sine injuria
MeaningLegal wrong without actual lossActual loss without legal wrong
Legal right infringedYesNo
Actual lossNot necessaryPresent, often heavy
ActionableYesNo
BasisViolation of a right is itself injuryLaw protects rights, not all interests
DamagesNominal, sometimes substantialNone
Leading casesAshby v. White; Bhim SinghGloucester Grammar School; Ushaben; Prabhu Dayal
munotes.in 8

Conclusion. The two maxims together show that the law of torts protects legal rights, not every interest. Under injuria sine damno the violation of a right is actionable even without loss, as the voter in Ashby v. White and the legislator in Bhim Singh found. Under damnum sine injuria even heavy loss is not actionable without the breach of a right. The Gloucester Grammar School case, Mogul Steamship, Bradford v. Pickles and Prabhu Dayal show this. So the decisive question in every case is whether a legal right of the plaintiff was infringed, not how much he lost.

munotes.in 9

The rest of the answers

The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 2 solved papers.

You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.

Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in

The question paper itself stays free.

Issue

Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.

Done!