KSLU Solved Question Papers
Law of Torts
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 2
2019 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 2 Law of Torts 2019 Jun Question Paper with Solutions
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 2019 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2019 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2019 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 80 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all five Units. (2) One essay type question and short note is compulsory from each Unit. (3) Figures to the right indicate marks. (4) Answers should be written either in English or Kannada completely.
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.
Q1
Unit I
(a)Explain the Maxim damnum sine injuria and Injuria sine damnum with the help of leading cases.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: what the Latin words mean; injuria sine damno with its rule and leading cases; damnum sine injuria with its rule and leading cases; the principle that links them; a table of differences; a conclusion.
The words
Damnum means harm or loss in fact, such as loss of money, health, comfort or business. Injuria means the violation of a right that the law recognises. Sine means "without". The law of torts asks about injuria first. A plaintiff wins by showing that a legal right of his was broken, not merely that he is worse off.
1. Injuria sine damno: a legal wrong without loss
Rule. When a person's legal right is violated, he can sue even though he has suffered no loss at all. The violation is itself the injury, and the law presumes damage. This is the position in every tort that is actionable per se, such as trespass to land, assault, battery, false imprisonment and libel.
Leading cases.
- Ashby v. White (1703), as recounted by the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787. A returning officer wrongly refused the vote of a qualified voter. The voter's candidate won anyway, so the refusal cost him nothing. He was still held entitled to damages. Denying a man his vote violated his right, and every right must have a remedy.
- Marzetti v. Williams, (1830) 1 B & Ad 415. A bank refused to pay a customer's cheque even though his account held enough money. The customer proved no loss. The court held that he could still sue, because his right to have the cheque honoured had been broken.
- Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1986 SC 494. A legislator was arrested and kept from attending the Assembly session. He was not produced before a magistrate in time. He had been freed by the time the Supreme Court heard his case. The Court still held his rights under articles 21 and 22(2) violated and awarded him Rs. 50,000.
2. Damnum sine injuria: loss without a legal wrong
Rule. When a person suffers loss but no legal right of his is violated, he cannot sue, however great the loss. Many losses in life are lawful. Competition, the use of one's own land and the exercise of lawful authority all cause loss without breaking anyone's rights.
Leading cases.
- The Gloucester Grammar School case (1410). A rival teacher opened a school near the plaintiff's school. Pupils moved across, and the plaintiff had to cut his fees. No action lay. Opening a competing school infringed no right of the plaintiff.
- Acton v. Blundell, (1843) 12 M & W 324. The defendant sank a coal pit on his own land, properly and without malice. It drained the underground water, and the plaintiff's well ran dry. The plaintiff had no right to that water, so no action lay.
- 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 dismissed them, since they were employed from day to day. The House of Lords held that the workmen had no action. No legal right of theirs was violated, and a bad motive does not make a lawful act unlawful.
- Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir, AIR 1978 Guj 13. Devotees asked the court to stop the screening of a film which, they said, hurt their religious feelings. The Gujarat High Court refused, since such feelings are not a legal right that a civil suit protects.
The principle that links the two
Both maxims rest on one idea: the law of torts protects rights, not interests in general. A person may have a strong interest in keeping his customers or his water supply. Unless the law turns that interest into a right, its loss is not actionable. Conversely, once a right exists, its breach is actionable whether or not it caused loss. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, "where there is a right, there is a remedy", supports the first rule.
An illustration
Anand walks across Bela's empty field without permission and damages nothing. Bela can sue him for trespass, a wrong without loss. Now suppose Chetan opens a tea stall beside Bela's stall and takes half her customers. Bela has lost money, but Chetan broke no right of hers. She has no claim, because this is loss without a legal wrong.
Differences
| Basis | Injuria sine damno | Damnum sine injuria |
|---|---|---|
| What happened | A right was violated | Loss was suffered |
| Actual loss | Absent or not needed | Present |
| Basis | Injuria sine damno | Damnum sine injuria |
|---|---|---|
| Can the plaintiff sue? | Yes | No |
| Typical setting | Torts actionable per se | Lawful competition, use of own land |
| Damages | Nominal or substantial | None |
| Example | Ashby v. White | Gloucester Grammar School case |
Conclusion. Injuria sine damno is actionable because a violated right needs no proof of loss, as Ashby v. White, Marzetti v. Williams and Bhim Singh show. Damnum sine injuria is not actionable, because loss alone is not a wrong. The Gloucester Grammar School case, Acton v. Blundell and Allen v. Flood show this. The test in every case is whether a legal right was infringed.
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.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.