1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Law of Torts

P.SEETHARAMAYYA V. G. MAHALAKSHMAMMA AIR 1958 AP 103  

 

FACTS

  • The appellants (plaintiffs) and defendants owned neighboring lands.
  • The fifth defendant constructed a bund (embankment) to prevent water from entering her land through a breach in the embankment of a Vagu (stream).
  • The defendants also built a trench and a second bund to prevent water from flooding their properties.
  • As a result of these protective measures, rainwater was diverted into the appellants' land, damaging their variga (a type of millet) and groundnut crops.
  • The appellants sought an injunction requiring the removal of the bunds and trench and sought damages for the harm caused to their crops.

ISSUES

  1. Can the defendants take protective measures (like constructing bunds and ditches) to prevent flooding on their property?
  2. Did the plaintiff suffer any legal injury as a result of the defendants' actions?

CONTENTIONS

  • Appellant's Argument:
    The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' actions in constructing bunds and trenches caused harm to their crops, and they were entitled to an injunction and compensation.
  • Defendants' Argument:
    The defendants claimed they were exercising their riparian rights to protect their land from flooding and that no legal injury was caused to the plaintiffs.

HELD

  • The court held that the defendants were within their rights to protect their land from flooding as long as it did not cause legal harm to others.
  • The principle of damnum sine injuria applies, meaning that while the plaintiffs suffered damage (loss of crops), they did not suffer any legal injury, as the defendants were exercising their lawful right to protect their property.
  • The plaintiffs could also take protective measures to safeguard their land from flooding, similar to what the defendants did.

COMMENTARY

This case firmly established the legal principle of damnum sine injuria in Indian law, emphasizing that damage or harm without any corresponding violation of a legal right does not give rise to a claim for compensation. It also reinforced the riparian rights of landowners, allowing them to take reasonable steps to prevent water from flooding their land, provided they do not cause legal harm to neighbouring landowners.