Maxims are supposed to be conventions and doctrines which are established as well as needed to take them following by the general people. Maxims seem to be very effective in a manner it comforts in learning them apparently but also absolutely. Maxims are also applied for understanding the appropriate explanation relating to any argument. Law itself is very challenging maxims having words in the Latin language clarifies the meaning word by word but the maxims are supposed to be applied carefully and that is the only complication with respect to the maxims.
Damnum Sine Injuria
Latin maxim Damnum sine injuria signifies the meaning of the maxim term by term as the term Damnum is damage, sine is for without, and injuria is any injury of the personal lawful privileges. Damnum sine injuria means any damage which is caused apart from the harm as well as prejudice. This Latin maxim states that any damage caused without infringing the personal lawful privileges and there may be any action may not be considered as a mistake by law.
Damages that are not prosecutable?
Any damage which is caused relating to the equitable rivalry resulting in the benefit for the civilization.
When any damage is caused by the honest faith for abbreviating the immense amount of the damage.
Any damage which arose due to the statement intending to derogate by the honour through the direction.
*Any action conducted by A which leads to damage B without infringing the B’s personal legal privileges, therefore no action will be prosecutable.
1. Gloucester Grammar School Case, 1410
In the case stated above the plaintiff was the school. Somehow conflict took place leading to this teacher quit his teaching job and he instituted the brand new institution straight in front of the school he left, as the teacher was very popular amongst the students many of the students took admission to the institution instituted by the teacher leaving their previous school. Plaintiff i.e school filed the suit against the respondent for the monetary damages caused because of him.
Court did find the respondents liable for the damages even the damages were monetary as there was not an infringement of the legal privilege.
2. Mayor of Bradford v/s Pickles 1895
In this case, the corporate body of the Bradford providing to the people through its well, the defendant of the suit was the owner of the adjoining plot to the corporate body at which point the reservoir is situated. Defendant the owner of the adjoining plot was consenting to dispose of his plot regarding this we went o meet mayor of the Bradford but the discussion between them did not work. The defendant in his plot he bored the reservoir and stopped the supply of water from the corporate body’s reservoir as that was the only way of supplying the water this leads to the damage as the supply of water was stopped. The corporate body prosecutes the defendant for antipathy.
The court held that as the defendant bored the reservoir in his plot the antipathy is not the crime of tort moreover the defendant was not founded accountable as there was no infringement of the legal personal privileges.
3. Mogul Steamship Co. McGregor Gow and Co
In the case stated above several business associations commencing in steamships unitedly ganged by to drive the Plaintiff business company outward from the tea-bearing business company through unitedly lessening and tendering at the lessened cost. The court, in this case, held that several other business companies did not infringe on the personal lawful privilege of the plaintiff and were not liable.
Injuria Sine Damnum
This Latin maxim signifies term by term as injuria indicates an injury, sine indicates without and damnum indicates damage caused to the personnel or property which means that any injury caused to the person did not result in personal injury or damages. This maxim states that the plaintiff is bind to show that he undergo lawful damage, not simple damage.
D is meandering in A’s residence without explaining the reason for meandering which leads to the infringement of A’s lawful privilege moreover this Latin maxim is also useful.
1. Ashby v. White
In this the plaintiff was the competent citizen who was willing to vote in the legislative voting, the respondent was the returning agent who stopped the plaintiff from voting during the voting. By the act of the respondent the there was no injury to the plaintiff but his lawful personal privilege was infringed on that ground defendant was accountable.
2. Bhim Singh vs. State of J. & K
In this case, the complainant was the M.L.A of the legislative assembly. One day when he was going to attend the parliamentary Conference he was unlawfully jailed. Police also do not present him before the Magistrate within the prescribed time. Firstly he was unlawfully jailed moreover his fundamental privilege guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution was also infringed as a result respondent was accountable and was also made to pay compensation of Rs 50,000/- to the complainant.
 (1410) Y.B. Hill 11 Hen, 4 of 47, p. 21, 36
 (1892) A.C. 25.
 (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 938.
 AIR 1986 SC 494
This Article is Authored by Chaitanya Dixit, B.B.A. LL.B(H) Student at Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad, U.P.
Also Read – Discuss The Principle of Res-Ipsa-Loquitur.