| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgment | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
Facts
| There, four defendants tried to ward off the flow of water into their plot from a stream by digging a trench as well as putting up a bund on their lands. The fifth defendant also, acting independently, put up bunds on her land to prevent the flow of water to her land.As a result of the act of these five defendants, the rainwater now flowed to the plaintiff’s land causing damage to them.The plaintiffs requested for a mandatory injunction to demolish the bunds and to fill up the trench on the defendants’ lands, for a permanent injunction preventing them from making bunds or making such trenches and also for damages amounting to Rs. 300 for the loss already caused due to the flow of the water to their land. • |
Principles
- Damnum sine injuria
- Right to be saved from flood
- The High Court held that the owner of land on or near a river has a right to build a fence upon his own ground to prevent damage to his ground by the overflow of river, even though as a result of the same, the over−flowing water is diverted to the neighbour’s land and causes damage.
- This being a clear case of damnum sine injuria, the defendants were not liable for the harm to the plaintiffs.
- The law permits the protection of one’s property from apprehended
danger by preventing the entrance of flood−water to one’s land even though such an act causes damage to neighbours. But if the flood−water has already entered one’s land, the law docs not permit him to cast it upon adjoining land
