Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

The defendants by digging a coalpit in the land intercepted the water which affected the plaintiffs well at a distance of about one mile. The plaintiff brought a suit for a damages against the defendants.
Which one of the following maxims is applicable in the aforesaid case?

The defendants by digging a coalpit in the land intercepted the water which affected the plaintiffs well at a distance of about one mile. The plaintiff brought a suit for a damages against the defendants.
Which one of the following maxims is applicable in the aforesaid case? Correct Answer Damnun sine injuria

Related Questions

To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition
In a suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant in his written statement has taken the objection of non-impleadment of necessary party. Despite such objection the plaintiff continued the suit and the suit finally was decreed. At the first appellate stage, the plaintiff withdraws the suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and subsequently filed a fresh suit. The period spent by the plaintiff in the earlier suit, under section 14 of Limitation Act is
Principle: A person is duty bound to act with such reasonable caution as a prudent man would have exercised under such circumstances.
Facts: The defendant 'D', built a hay stack near the boundary of his land which bordered the plaintiffs land. He had been warned several times by many in the vicinity over a period of five weeks that the manner in which he built the hay stack was dangerous. The defendant's hay stack had been built with a precautionary "chimney" to prevent the hay from spontaneously igniting, but one day it caught fire. Consequently, the hay ignited and spread to the plaintiffs land, burning down two of the plaintiffs cottages.
Is 'D' liable?
C, a stranger blocked the water pipes of a wash-basin and opened the tap. The wash-basin was otherwise in the control of the defendant B. The overflowing water damaged the plaintiff goods. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a suit for damages against the defendant B. C was not made a party.
In the aforesaid suit which one of the following conclusions is correct?
A theft had been committed in the defendant's house. He informed the police that he suspected the plaintiff for the same. Therefore the plaintiff was arrested by the police. A complaint was filed by the defendant but the plaintiff was subsequently discharged by the magistrate as the final report showed that there was no evidence connecting the plaintiff with the theft. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution.
In the above case, which one of the following decisions is correct?
Due to the collapse of the clock-tower situated opposite the town hall in main bazaar of a city, a number of persons died. The clock-tower belonged to the Municipal Corporation of the city and was exclusively under its control. It was 60 years old but the normal life of the structure of the building which had fallen could be 40 to 45 years having regard to the kind of material used. Mrs. X whose husband died due to the collapse of the clock-tower filed the suit for damages against the Municipal Corporation.
Which one of the following maxims is applicable in the aforesaid case?
A suit may be dismissed under Order 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
1. Where the summons is not served upon the defendant in consequence of the plaintiffs failure to pay costs for service of summons.
2. Where neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appears.
3. Where plaintiff, after summons returned unserved, fails for 7 days to apply for fresh summons.
4. Where on the date fixed for hearing in a suit only defendant appears and he does not admit the plaintiffs claim.
The plaintiff instructed his Banker to deposit excise duty on his behalf in the Govt. treasury and debit the current account of plaintiff. The Bank deposited the said sum in the treasury. Later the plaintiff came to know, that the said amount was embezzled by the Treasurer and the Accountant of the treasury and the amount was not credited in the name of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff brings an action against the State for damages then the State is:
Principle: No action lies for mere damages or loss, however substantial, caused by an act which does not infringe some legal right of the plaintiff.
Facts: In order to ward-off the flow of water into his land from a stream, 'A' dug a trench and put up a bund on his land. As a result, the rainwater now flowed to 'B's land and caused damages. 'B' claimed damages from 'A'.
In a suit for partition three defendants were set ex parte. Preliminary decree was passed. On the application of one of the three defendants the Court set aside the decree as against all the defendants. The order of the court is