KSLU Solved Question Papers
Law of Torts
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 2
2023 Mar Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 2 Law of Torts 2023 Mar Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 5 November 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 2023 Mar examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2023 Mar examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2023 Mar 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/problems is compulsory from each Unit. (3) Figures to the right indicate marks. (4) Answer 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)"Every injury imports damage but every damage is not injury". Discuss the statement in the light of decided cases.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: what "injury" and "damage" mean in the statement; the first half (every injury imports damage), with Ashby v. White, Marzetti v. Williams and Bhim Singh; the second half (not every damage is injury), with the Gloucester Grammar School case, Mogul Steamship, Bradford Corporation v. Pickles and Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal; the principle behind both; a comparison table; a conclusion.
The two words
The statement plays on two words that sound alike but mean different things in law.
- Injury, from the Latin injuria, means the violation of a legal right. It is a wrong in the eye of the law.
- Damage, from the Latin damnum, means actual harm or loss, such as loss of money, health, comfort or property.
The statement says two things. First, wherever a legal right is violated, the law presumes damage, so the plaintiff can sue. Second, harm or loss alone, without the violation of a right, gives no action. Both halves are justified by decided cases.
First half: every injury imports damage
This is the maxim injuria sine damno, a legal wrong without actual loss. Some rights are so important that their violation is actionable without any proof of loss. Such torts are actionable per se. Trespass, assault, battery, false imprisonment and libel are examples.
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 wrongfully refused to receive the vote of a qualified elector. The candidate he supported was elected anyway, so the elector lost nothing. Yet he was held entitled to damages, because his legal right to vote had been violated. The violation itself was the damage the law recognised.
Marzetti v. Williams, (1830) 1 B & Ad 415. A banker wrongly refused to honour a customer's cheque, though he held enough of the customer's money. The customer recovered without proving any actual loss. The breach of his right was enough.
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 and was not produced before a magistrate as the law required. The Supreme Court awarded him Rs. 50,000. The violation of his liberty under articles 21 and 22(2) was itself the injury.
Second half: not every damage is injury
This is the maxim damnum sine injuria, actual loss without a legal wrong. Many acts cause loss to others without violating any right of theirs. Such loss gives no action, however great it is.
The Gloucester Grammar School case (1410), as recounted by the Karnataka High Court. A schoolmaster set up a rival school next to the plaintiff's school. Boys moved from the plaintiff's school to the new one, and his fees fell sharply. He suffered real loss but had no remedy. Lawful competition violates no legal right.
Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co., [1892] AC 25. Shipowners in the China tea trade formed an association and cut freight rates to drive a rival out of the trade. The rival lost business but failed. The association had used lawful means of trade competition.
Bradford Corporation v. Pickles, [1895] AC 587. Pickles sank shafts on his own land, cutting off percolating water that fed the Corporation's reservoir. His aim was said to be to force the Corporation to buy his land. He was not liable, because no one had a right to percolating water.
Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1975 All 132. The plaintiff built sixteen shops on old foundations without the sanction the law required. After notices, the Committee demolished them. The Allahabad High Court dismissed his suit. There is no right to enjoy property built unlawfully, so he suffered damage but no injury.
The principle behind both halves
The law of torts protects rights, not mere interests. The question in every case is whether a legal right of the plaintiff was violated.
- If it was, the plaintiff succeeds even without loss, though he may get only nominal damages.
- If it was not, he fails even with heavy loss.
This keeps the law of torts within limits. Ordinary life is full of competition and conflicting uses of property that cause loss to others. If every loss were actionable, normal trade and the use of one's own land would be impossible.
Comparison
| Point | Injuria sine damno | Damnum sine injuria |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning | Violation of a right without loss | Loss without violation of a right |
| Actionable? | Yes | No |
| Damages | At least nominal | None |
| Leading cases | Ashby v. White; Bhim Singh | Gloucester Grammar School; Mogul Steamship |
Conclusion. The statement is correct. Every violation of a legal right is actionable, because the law presumes damage from it, as Ashby v. White and Bhim Singh show. But loss without the violation of a right is not actionable, however serious, as the Gloucester Grammar School case, Mogul Steamship and Bradford Corporation v. Pickles show. The test is always injury to a right, not the size of the loss.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.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, and so does the syllabus.
What should we fix or add?
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.