Torts unit -1 case discussion

Case discussion on Law of Torts Elementary for LL.B Students

1. Unit -1 Law of Torts (Case-Discussion ) By Dr. Ashutosh kumar srivastava Faculty of Law University of Delhi Mobile [phone] Contact : [email protected] 1 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

2. Legal Damage Legal damage can be understand by two maxims Injuria sine damno 2. Damnum sine Injuria 2 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

3. Injuria sine damno Injuria sine damno = if a private right is infringed , the plaintiff will have a cause of action even though the plaintiff has not suffered any actual loss or damage. Only infringement of legal right can claim. FACT IN ISSUE – JUDGEMENT – ORDER P X VS D Y COURT ? A B 3 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

4. Ashby v. White, (1703)2 Lord Raym 938 Brief Fact Summary.  After a free burgess of a corporation was precluded from voting, he brought suit to recover as to the injuries he suffered . Synopsis of Rule of Law.  When the actions of one party hinder the rights of another, that party may be found liable. Facts.  Ashby (Plaintiff) a free burgess, was precluded from being able to exercise his right to vote, by the actions of another, and he brought suit when he sustained injury . DAMAGE - 4 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

5. Ashby v. White, (1703)2 Lord Raym 938 Issue.  This question presents among the first issues grounded in civil rights . The issue of this case is whether one party may recover damages when one of his civil rights is hindered by the action of another . Held.  Chief Justice Holt held that a plaintiff ought to be allowed to recover, because the right to vote is a common law right and thus, an obstruction of that right should give rise to a cause of action. 5 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

6. Ashby v. White, (1703)2 Lord Raym 938 Discussion.  When the actions of one person serve to hinder the rights of another, a cause of action may arise . Want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal , ubi jus ibi remedium 6 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

7. 7 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

8. Jadu nath Malik vs Kali krishna tagore If person who is entitle to be upon the electoral roll , is wrongfully omitted from such roll and such deprive of his right to vote, An action will lies. ACTIONABLE PER SE 8 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

9. Municipal Board of Agra v. Ashrafi Lal , AIR 1921 All. 202 Municipal Board of Agra v. Ashrafi Lal is one the cases of the legal maxim “ Injuria Sine Damnum ” which means that injury or loss or damage so caused to the plaintiff without suffering any physical injury or damage . 9 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

10. Municipal Board of Agra v. Ashrafi Lal , AIR 1921 All. 202 The suit was brought against the Municipal Board of Agra. The plaintiff, who was a pleader, was a previous member of the Board, on which he said he sat from 1914 to 1916. Two lists were prepared by the officials of the Board under statutory authority, i.e., an electoral roll and a candidates’ list. An election was approaching in the year 1919, and the plaintiff had been a severe critic of the Municipal administration up to that time. He alleged, and on the matter, he was the best judge, that his criticism was such as to create resentment to himself personally among the members of the Board. 10 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

11. Municipal Board of Agra v. Ashrafi Lal , AIR 1921 All. 202 He was a house owner and an occupier at Agra and didn’t deny that he was entitled to be on both the roll and the candidates’ list; indeed he was on both, and the revising authority, consisting of three members of the Board, passed the roll and the list on the 31st day of January 1919. 11 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

12. Municipal Board of Agra v. Ashrafi Lal , AIR 1921 All. 202 As the result of what these persons did officially in the course of their business, or wrongly with intention in the course of their business, or as a result of the revengeful and malicious interference of some individual, either a member of the Board or an employee in the office of the Board, after the statutory sitting of the revised authority, the plaintiff’s name on the list was so put and his description so fabricated as to represent him to be somebody other than the person he was known to be. 12 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

13. Municipal Board of Agra v. Ashrafi Lal , AIR 1921 All. 202 For example, on the candidates’ list (and if his description of himself is correct, it is as a candidate that he was most objectionable to the Board) he was described by his right name but with his wrong father, his wrong caste, and his wrong occupation, all three of which put against his name were those of the owner of the house and not of himself. 13 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

14. Municipal Board of Agra v. Ashrafi Lal , AIR 1921 All. 202 This being so, the Nomination Officers who acted sometime between the 31st day of January and the 8th day of March had to reject his nomination, because the person who presented himself, at the nomination was not the son of the father in the candidates’ list. 14 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

15. Municipal Board of Agra v. Ashrafi Lal , AIR 1921 All. 202 Therefore, the plaintiff brought this suit and asked for the correction of the list as a specific relief, claiming damages for the wrong done to him, and at some later stage of the suit adding the claim that because the electoral list or the candidates ‘list had been tampered with, the whole constitution of the Board was invalid. 15 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

16. Municipal Board of Agra v. Ashrafi Lal , AIR 1921 All. 202 Issue Whether the corporation can be held liable?  16 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

17. Municipal Board of Agra v. Ashrafi Lal , AIR 1921 All. 202 In this case, Walsh, J. stated “It is possibly desirable to say quite clearly, although it appears from what we have said already, that the ground on which the case was remanded, namely, the reconsideration of the issue as to whether the Board should be declared to be altogether invalid and improperly constituted because one of the names on its election list is wrongly entered, is one which no court ought to have entertained at all and which the lower court should disregard and strike out of the issues altogether” 17 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

18. Municipal Board of Agra v. Ashrafi Lal , AIR 1921 All. 202 “It is necessary in the case of a public body to explain how the rule should be worked. In the first place, the contention already made by the Board’s counsel that there are too many papers is based upon a misunderstanding. It is not necessary to produce all the papers in the possession of the municipality, relating to the electoral roll and the candidates’ list, of any kind whatever. All that is required is to produce for inspection the documents relating to the entry of the plaintiff’s name on. 18 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

19. Municipal Board of Agra v. Ashrafi Lal , AIR 1921 All. 202 The candidates’ list and the electoral roll and every document, through whatever stage it has passed, relating to the plaintiff’s name, whether there has been any alteration, addition, or subtraction from the original entry in such rolls of the plaintiff’s name, and any correspondence between the members of the Board and the Executive Officer or Secretary or other official or clerk of the Board relating to the plaintiff’s name and the corrections or alterations made on the list relating to the plaintiff It is not necessary to flood the court . It would be a breach of duty if the Executive Officer or the Secretary attempted to flood the court with a number of irrelevant documents. 19 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

20. Damnum sine Injuria Damnum sine Injuria = No action will lie if there is actual loss or damage but there has been no infringement of Legal right Only infringement of legal right can claim. Damnum YES Injuria LEGAL NO NOT ACTIONABLE PER SE – COST 20 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

21. The Mayor of Bradford v Pickles 21 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

22. The Mayor of Bradford v Pickles   Facts D owned land containing underground streams which fed C's waterworks. D began to sink shafts for the alleged purpose of draining certain beds on stone the effects of which were to seriously affect water supplies to C's operations. C alleged that D was not acting in good faith but to compel them to purchase his land. D D C P 22 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

23. The Mayor of Bradford v Pickles Issue Can a use of property which would be legal if due to a proper motive become illegal because it is prompted by a motive which is MALICIOUS ?? NO 23 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

24. The Mayor of Bradford v Pickles Decision Appeal not accepted. appeal should be dismissed with costs. 24 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

25. The Mayor of Bradford v Pickles Reasons For The court held that as long as Pickles had a right to take an action on his property, there is no way that can be converted to an illegal action, no matter what his motives. There was no reason why he should not demand that the city pay for his interests in the water beneath his land. 25 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

26. The Mayor of Bradford v Pickles Ratio One has the right to use his land as he wishes.   26 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

27. Gloucester Grammar School Case 27 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

28. Gloucester Grammar School Case Gloucester Grammar School case is a landmark case that is referred in all situations explaining the maxim   Damnum sine Injuria .   Hon’ble Justice Y.B Hillary’s judgement in the 1940 till today serves as a benchmark judgement explaining the point of law. Damnum = DAMAGE = YES sine Injuria .=INJURY =? LEGAL INJURY = No =no violation of legal duty Not actionable per se 28 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

29. Gloucester Grammar School Case Facts of the Gloucester Grammar School case The defendant was a school teacher in a school named Gloucester Grammar School. The defendant for some reason decided to quit his job as a teacher and he decided to open up a new school just adjacent to his previous employer’s school i.e in the vicinity of Gloucester Grammar School. The defendant further reduced his new school’s fee to 12 pence as against the 40 pence that was being charged by his previous school. Since he was also quite famous with his students at the previous school and the new school’s fee was less than half of the previous school, many students left the previous school and joined the new school .. 29 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

30. Gloucester Grammar School Case This resulted in pecuniary losses to the previous school ( Gloucester Grammar School ) The petitioner i.e the owner of the Gloucester Grammar School decided to bring a suit for recovery of damages against the defendant alleging that the above-mentioned act of opening up a new school in the vicinity of his existing school caused him financial losses and that he should be compensated for the damages caused 30 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

31. Gloucester Grammar School Case Issues Raised: The two issues raised by the plaintiff   was: Can the pecuniary loss suffered by the plaintiff because of the Defendant opening up a competitive business be compensated if the right of the plaintiff have been damaged? If the case comes under the maxim Damnum Sine Injuria ? If yes, can the defendant skip liability ? Legal Right - infringed ? – no = no legal duty = no liability Damnum Sine Injuria =yes 31 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

32. Gloucester Grammar School Case Judgement in Brief The court held that Gloucester Grammar School has no case against the defendant as they have suffered damages but no legal right of the petitioner was injured. And this is merely a case of business competition between Gloucester Grammar school and the new school. Therefore the act of opening up another school of similar fee structure or even a discounted  fee structure  was not an actionable wrong nor an injury to Gloucester Grammar school or his proprietor. 32 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

33. Gloucester Grammar School Case The court held in the affirmative that Gloucester Grammar School has no case against the defendant as the defendant had done nothing wrong against them nor had they suffered any legal wrong, thus Gloucester Gloucester Grammar School has suffered no injury. The defendant merely setting up a new school in competition had done no wrong to the plaintiff. 33 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

34. Gloucester Grammar School Case Indian Perspective The well-known expression  damnum sine injuria  states that a damage can be caused without any act of injustice or infringement of a legal right . In the above famous case of  Gloucestershire Grammar School  , when another school was founded in rivalry, the maxim was applied. The prior school’s claim was dismissed because the creation of a new school did not infringe on any of his legal rights. 34 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

35. Gloucester Grammar School Case Although the prior school may have suffered monetary or financial losses because of the competition by the later school. but no Legal injury occurredso legal rights are not violated. Damnum sine injuria maxim applied. In the case of  Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed,  (1976) 1 SCC 671, the Supreme Court used the aforementioned principles. The fact that the petitioner has a photostat store outside of the Mini Sectt . does not preclude respondent from soliciting applications to open another photostat shop. 35 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

36. Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal AIR 1975 All 132 36 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

37. Town Area Committee (D) (appellant) v. Prabhu Dayal AIR 1975 All 132 (plaintiff)(respondent ) HARI SWARUP, J. – Plaintiff’s case was that he had made construction of 16 shops on the old foundations of the building known as Garhi and the defendant Town Area Committee acting through its Chairman and Vice-Chairman, who are defendants 2 and 3 illegally demolished these constructions. By this demolition plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs. 1,000. According to him the notice under Section 186 of the U.P. Municipal Act P vs D1 d2 d3 d4 d5 37 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

38. Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal AIR 1975 All 132 Municipal Act was bad as it gave to the plaintiff only two hours’ time to demolish the constructions and not a reasonable time as contemplated in Section 302 of the Act. It was also asserted that demolition, after this notice was bad as the notice was served at a time when the plaintiff was out of station. The action was said to be mala fide. 38 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

39. Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal AIR 1975 All 132 The plea of the defendants was that the constructions had been made by the plaintiff without giving the notice of intention to erect the building under Section 178 and without obtaining the necessary sanction under Section 180 of the Act. It was denied that the action was mala fide and it was asserted that the notice to demolish the constructions had been given earlier on 18th December requiring the stoppage of further construction and removal of constructions already made and when it was not complied with an order had been passed by the District Magistrate directing the Town Area Committee to take action under Section 186 . Thereafter another notice was given on December 21 , which also was not complied with and only then the building was demolished in accordance with law. 39 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

40. Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal AIR 1975 All 132 Coming to the merits of the case, it appears that the lower appellate Court has completely misdirected itself. The claim was on the basis of damages caused to the plaintiff by an act of the defendants. The plaintiff can get compensation only if he proves to have suffered injury because of an illegal act of the defendant and not otherwise. Malice does not enter the scene at all. A legal act, though motivated by malice, will not make the action liable to pay damages . 40 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

41. Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal AIR 1975 All 132 Before the plaintiff can get any damages he must prove that he had suffered an injury. ( legal injury ) Law does not take into account all harms suffered by a person which caused no legal injury. Damage so done is called damnum sine injuria . Such a damage does not give the sufferer any right to get compensation. In the present case there is no doubt that the plaintiff was himself guilty of committing the wrong . As found by the trial Court, 41 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

42. Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal AIR 1975 All 132 According to learned counsel for the plaintiff, the demolition was not done in accordance with law as the notice did not give reasonable time and hence the Municipal Board will be liable to pay damages. The plaintiffs did not appear before the authority to show cause why the building should not be demolished. Again after three days another notice was given and the building was thereafter demolished. There was no objection made that the two hours’ time given in the notice of the 21st was insufficient. 42 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

43. Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal AIR 1975 All 132 Had the plaintiff made a complaint that he had suffered a loss because the demolition was done the same day and he would not have suffered loss if greater time had been granted for demolishing the illegal constructions, that would have been a different matter. 43 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

44. Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal AIR 1975 All 132 As the plaintiff has failed to prove that he had suffered injuria in the legal sense, he is not entitled to get any compensation. The decree of the Court below cannot, even though the plaintiff may have suffered damages, be sustained. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court restored . 44 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

45. P. Seetharamayya v. G. Mahalakshmamma AIR 1958 AP 103 45 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

46. P. Seetharamayya v. G. Mahalakshmamma AIR 1958 AP 103 The parties to the appeals are owners of adjacent lands. This case is a clear one of damnum sine injuria . The appellant asked for mandatory injunction to demolish the bunds and to fill in the trench on the defendants’ land, for permanent injunction against these defendants against putting up bunds or digging a trench, and for damages for the loss caused by flow of water 46 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

47. P. Seetharamayya v. G. Mahalakshmamma AIR 1958 AP 103 The parties to the appeals are owners of adjacent lands. The fifth defendant had constructed a bund on her land to preserve part of it from damage by flow of water through a breach in the embankment of the vagu . Defendants Nos.1 to 4 dug a trench to ward off water entering into their plot. These defendants further constructed another bund to the north of their and as additional safeguard 47 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

48. P. Seetharamayya v. G. Mahalakshmamma AIR 1958 AP 103 The appellants’ case is that the fifth defendant on account of bitter enmity between her and the other defendants, put up bunds in her plot, and defendants Nos. 1 to 4 dug the trench as well as put up a bund to the north and the west of their plots; that thereby rain water falling on their plot flowed into appellants’ plot, completely washing variga and groundnut crops raised therein; which the appellants twice put up bunds along a length of 150 feet to the west of their plot to prevent the flow of rain water, but each time the bunds were washed away. 48 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

49. P. Seetharamayya v. G. Mahalakshmamma AIR 1958 AP 103 The appellant asked for mandatory injunction to demolish the bunds and to fill in the trench on the defendants’ land, for permanent injunction against these defendants against putting up bunds or digging a trench, and for damages for the loss caused by flow of water. Permanent injunction Damages 49 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

50. P. Seetharamayya v. G. Mahalakshmamma AIR 1958 AP 103 Issues 1.Can defendants protect their land from normal rain water? 2. Can defendants protect their land from flood water? 3. Whether any legal injury has been caused to the plaintiff? 50 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

51. P. Seetharamayya v. G. Mahalakshmamma AIR 1958 AP 103 In this case it was urged before the court that there was no stream on the west of the defendant’s lands and, therefore, they have not the right of riparian owners in times of flood. But the finding of the Lower Appellate Court about there being a stream, was supported by the description given to the channel in the Commissioner’s plan. The Case contends that the flood is a common enemy against which every man has a right to defend himself, and it would be mischievous if the law were otherwise, for a man must then stand by and see his property destroyed, out of fear lest dome neighbor might say ‘you have caused me an injury.’  51 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

52. P. Seetharamayya v. G. Mahalakshmamma AIR 1958 AP 103 However, there is a great distinction between protecting oneself from an apprehended danger and getting rid of the consequences of an injury which has actually occurred. The distinction was clearly marked in Whalley v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry. Co. [(1884) 13 QBD 131], It was further contented that the right of protection against flood water should not be confused with the customary right of an agriculturist in this country It appears to us that in India, the right of an agriculturist to drain off into the lower lands the water brought into his land for ordinary agricultural operations is a customary right. He is entitled to do so by custom; otherwise, it will be impossible to carry out agricultural operations successfully. 52 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

53. P. Seetharamayya v. G. Mahalakshmamma AIR 1958 AP 103 It is further contented that no legal injury is caused to the plaintiff as the principal of damnum sine injuria prevails its states that injury which is being suffered by the plaintiff but there is no violation of any legal right of a person. In such circumstances, where there is no violation of the legal right of but the injury, or damage is being suffered by the plaintiff, the plaintiff can’t bring an action against the other for the same, as it is not actionable in law , unless there is some infringement of a legal right is present. 53 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

54. P. Seetharamayya v. G. Mahalakshmamma AIR 1958 AP 103 Decision of the Court this is a case of damnum sine injuria , and the plaintiff must adopt their own protective measures against the flood water”. In these circumstances, both the appeals fail, and are dismissed with costs throughout . Damnum = actual loss ? –yes p= cr vs d = in their own land sine injuria -= legal damage? = legal right ?= No No remady 54 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

55. Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum & ors. 1997 (9) SCC 552 55 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

56. Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum & ors. 1997 (9) SCC 552 The Court held that if the claim depends upon proof of the contract, there will be no action in tort. If the claim arises from the relationship between the parties, independent of the contract, an action would lie in tort at the option of the plaintiff, although he might alternatively have pleaded in the contract. We can remember : White v. John Warrick & Co. Ltd. Ubi jus ibi remedium must remember 56 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

57. Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum & ors. 1997 (9) SCC 552 Rajkot Municipal Corp.(appellant in this appeal) was held liable for negligence which resulted in the death of Jayantilal respondents’ husband and father in this appeal). 57 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

58. Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum & ors. 1997 (9) SCC 552 Facts: 1. Jayantilal , while commuting to his office through a footpath,  died because of the sudden fall of a roadside tree on him.  Respondents sued for damages of 1 lac from the Corporation (appellant herein). 2. Trial court  held Corporation to be liable  for the death of Jayantilal as they failed in the statutory duty to check the healthy condition of the tree and decreed 45k/-. 58 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

59. Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum & ors. 1997 (9) SCC 552 3. Corp filed an appeal in HC. Division Bench also held the Corp. liable as the statutory duty to maintain trees gives rise to  TORTIOUS LIABILITY  on the corporation and was guilty of negligence in not taking the care to protect the life of the deceased. The corporation failed to periodically examine the condition of trees. 4. Thus, Corporation filed this appeal by special leave. 59 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

60. Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum & ors. 1997 (9) SCC 552 Contention: 1 . HC is wrong in its conclusion that the corporation is having unqualified and absolute duty to maintain trees. It was reasonably not possible to inspect every tree for good condition, and it could not foresee that a tree would fall suddenly when Jayantilal was passing. 2.  There is no reasonable proximity between the duty of care and doctrine of the neighborhood as laid down in  Donoghue vs. Stevenson. 60 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

61. Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum & ors. 1997 (9) SCC 552 Legal Issue: When the claim depends upon proof of the contract, there will be any action in tort? 61 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

62. Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum & ors. 1997 (9) SCC 552 Justice K Ramaswamy 1. Appeal allowed but directed the Corporation not to recover 45k/- as the respondent were poor. 2.  Causation was too remote  as it was difficult to reasonably anticipate by ordinary prudent man, to foresee injury because of causation or omission on the part of the defendant in the performance or negligence in the performance of the duty. 3. In this case, the  neighbor relationship and proximity of causation  for negligence were  not satisfactorily proven  by the respondent . 62 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

63. CHESEMORE VS RICHERDS (1859) 7 HLC 349 This case is well known landmark cases of Tort BASED ON maxim “ Damnum sine injuria ” ACTUAL DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFF ? = YES Is Legal Right of plaintiff violated ? =no Any legal Duty towards plaintiff is breached ? No Any Legal Damage to plaintiff occurred ?= no DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF 63 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

64. CHESEMORE VS RICHERDS (1859) 7 HLC 349 DIRECTION OF FLOW DEFRNDANT PLAINTIFF 64 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

65. CHESEMORE VS RICHERDS (1859) 7 HLC 349 Fact: Plaintiff owns a mill and he used to get water from a stream for almost from last sixty years but the defendant dug a well on their land due to which the source of water of plaintiff was stopped so now the plaintiff was not getting water from the stream by which plaintiff suffered loss. 65 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

66. CHESEMORE VS RICHERDS (1859) 7 HLC 349 Judgment: Court held that defendant cannot be held liable for the loss caused to the plaintiff because the defendant had all the legal rights on his land and he was free to dig wells on his land. 66 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

67. Mental element in Torts Intention = civil wrong Malice = will not be consider Legally wedded wife was told that “,,,,,died “ Mental shock 349 ipc force 350 IPC FORCE + CRIMINAL FORCE , 351-IPC 67 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava

68. THANK YOU 68 Dr.Ashutosh kumar Srivastava