munotes®
Sign in
Home / KSLU Solved Papers / B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) / Sem 2 / Law of Torts / 2018 Jun / Solutions

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 2 Law of Torts 2018 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

2018 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 2018 Jun examination.

munotes.in ii

Contents

The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2018 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 2018 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

Q1Define Tort. Explain Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum sine Injuria with the help of case law.[16]

Answer

For full marks, cover: Part A, tort defined: s. 2(m) of the Limitation Act 1963 and the definitions of Salmond and Winfield, with the elements (Jay Laxmi Salt Works); Part B, injuria sine damno: meaning, the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, and cases (Ashby v. White, Marzetti v. Williams, Constantine v. Imperial Hotels, Bhim Singh); Part C, damnum sine injuria: meaning, the policy, and cases (Gloucester Grammar School, Mogul Steamship, Acton v. Blundell, Bradford Corporation v. Pickles, Allen v. Flood, Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal); the two maxims compared; a conclusion.

Part A: What a tort is

The statute. Section 2(m) of the Limitation Act 1963 provides that "tort" means "a civil wrong which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust". A tort is therefore a civil wrong, redressed at the suit of the person injured. And it is something other than a pure breach of contract or trust.

The writers.

munotes.in 1
  1. Salmond stressed the remedy. A tort is a civil wrong remedied by a common law action for unliquidated damages, that is, damages the court assesses itself.
  2. Winfield stressed the duty: tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law, owed to persons generally.

The elements. In Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd v. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 1, a reclamation bund built by the State flooded the appellant's salt works. The Supreme Court explained that a tortious duty is fixed by law and owed to persons generally, unlike a contractual duty. A tort thus needs a wrongful act or omission, legal damage, and a legal remedy.

The second element, legal damage, is where the two maxims in the question come in. Legal damage means the violation of a legal right, called injuria. It does not mean loss of money or property, called damnum.

Part B: Injuria sine damno

Meaning. Injuria sine damno means the violation of a legal right without any actual loss. It is actionable. The plaintiff need not prove that he lost anything. The law presumes damage from the violation itself.

munotes.in 2

The reason. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium says that where there is a right, there is a remedy. A right that could be ignored whenever its breach caused no loss would have no value.

Cases.

  1. A vote refused. In Ashby v. White (1703), a returning officer refused to accept a qualified elector's vote. The elector's candidate won, so he lost nothing. As the Supreme Court recounted in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787, the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium was applied and his claim for damages was decreed.
  2. A cheque dishonoured. In Marzetti v. Williams, (1830) 1 B & Ad 415, a banker refused to pay a customer's cheque though he held enough of the customer's money. The customer recovered without proving any loss.
munotes.in 3
  1. A guest refused. In Constantine v. Imperial Hotels Ltd, [1944] KB 693, Learie Constantine, the West Indian cricketer, booked a room at a London hotel but was told he could stay only one night. Birkett J. held that the innkeeper had broken his duty to receive a traveller. Five guineas were awarded, though no loss was proved, to mark the right.
  2. Liberty taken away. In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494, a member of the Legislative Assembly was arrested on his way to a session. He was not produced before a magistrate as the law required. He was free by the time of hearing. The Supreme Court still awarded him Rs. 50,000 for the violation of his rights under articles 21 and 22(2).

Part C: Damnum sine injuria

Meaning. Damnum sine injuria means actual loss without the violation of a legal right. It is not actionable, however great the loss.

The reason. Many lawful acts cause loss to others. Trade competition, the use of one's own land, and the exercise of one's own rights all hurt someone. If every loss were actionable, ordinary life and business could not go on. So the law compensates only the violation of rights.

Cases.

munotes.in 4
  1. A rival school. The Gloucester Grammar School case (1410) is cited by the Karnataka High Court. A schoolmaster opened a school next to the plaintiff's school and drew away his pupils and fees. No action lay.
  2. A price war. In Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co., [1892] AC 25, shipowners combined to cut freight rates and drive a rival out of the China tea trade. The rival lost heavily but failed. Competition without dishonesty or other illegality gives no claim.
  3. A well run dry. In Acton v. Blundell, (1843) 12 M & W 324, the defendant sank a coal pit on his own land, properly and without malice, and the plaintiff's well ran dry. No action lay.
  4. A bad motive. In Bradford Corporation v. Pickles, [1895] AC 587, Pickles cut off percolating water feeding the Corporation's reservoir, said to be to force a sale of his land. He was not liable. No one has a right to percolating water, and a bad motive does not make a lawful act wrongful.
munotes.in 5
  1. A lawful dismissal procured. In Allen v. Flood, [1898] AC 1, a union official told an employer that his members would stop work unless two workmen were dismissed. The employer lawfully did so. No action lay, because no unlawful act was procured.
  2. An unlawful building pulled down. In Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1975 All 132, the plaintiff built sixteen shops without the sanction the law required, and the Committee demolished them. The Allahabad High Court dismissed his claim, since there is no right to enjoy a building put up unlawfully.

Applying the maxims

  1. A shopkeeper loses customers when a supermarket opens next door. He has lost money, but no right of his is violated. This is damnum sine injuria, and he has no claim.
  2. A person walks across his neighbour's field without leave and causes no harm. A right to exclusive possession is violated. This is injuria sine damno, and the trespass is actionable.
munotes.in 6
  1. A bank wrongly refuses a customer's cheque though his account has money. His right is violated even if he suffers no loss, as in Marzetti v. Williams.
  2. A neighbour's well goes dry because the owner next door digs his own well. There is no right to underground percolating water, so it is damnum sine injuria, as in Acton v. Blundell.

The two maxims compared

PointInjuria sine damnoDamnum sine injuria
Literal meaningInjury without damageDamage without injury
Legal right violated?YesNo
Actual loss?Not neededPresent, often heavy
Actionable?YesNo
RemedyNominal or greater damagesNone
BasisUbi jus ibi remediumFreedom to act lawfully
Leading casesAshby v. White; Marzetti; Constantine; Bhim SinghGloucester Grammar School; Mogul; Acton; Bradford; Allen v. Flood
munotes.in 7

A note on limits

  1. Torts that need proof of damage. Injuria sine damno applies fully to torts actionable per se, such as trespass and libel. In negligence and nuisance, actual damage must also be proved.
  2. Malice in nuisance. Motive does not usually matter. But deliberate annoyance can make a nuisance actionable. In Christie v. Davey, [1893] 1 Ch 316, noise made on purpose to annoy a neighbour's music lessons was held a nuisance.

Conclusion. A tort is a civil wrong, other than a mere breach of contract or trust. It arises from a duty fixed by law and is remedied by unliquidated damages. Its core is legal damage, the violation of a legal right. So injuria sine damno, a violated right without loss, is actionable, as Ashby v. White, Constantine and Bhim Singh show. Damnum sine injuria, loss without a violated right, is not actionable, however heavy the loss. The Gloucester Grammar School case, Mogul, Acton v. Blundell and Bradford Corporation v. Pickles show this. The law protects rights, not every interest a person may have.

munotes.in 8

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!