Question

Assertion :No action lies for more damage caused by some act which does not violate a legal right. Reason: An action lies for interference with another is legal right even where it causes no actual damage.

• A. Both Assertion and Reason are correct and Reason is the correct explanation for Assertion
• B. Both Assertion and Reason are correct but Reason is not the correct explanation for Assertion
• C. Assertion is correct but Reason is incorrect
• D. Assertion is incorrect but Reason is correct

Answer 1

The correct option is B Both Assertion and Reason are correct but Reason is not the correct explanation for Assertion

Both A and R are true but R is not the true explanation of A. damnum sine injuria (Anand Singh v Ram Chandra AIR $195328)$ is the converse of injuria sine damno (ashby v white $\left(1703\right)2$ Lord Rayam $938$). In some cases loss is not actionable in tort (damnum sine injuria), conversely there are cases in which an act is actionable although it has caused no loss at all (injuria sine damno). No action lies for meredamage, however substantial, caused by some act which does not violate a legal right but that an action does lie in certain cases of interference with another's legal private right, even where it causes no actual damage. example: a trespass. There may certain legal wrongs which may cause no loss or damage to another, yet the law provides a legal remedy although there is only a violation of private legal right.