CHAPTER V

LEGAL MAXIMS

1.Actus-non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (The act does not amount to crime
unless it is done with guilty intent)

The fundamental principle of criminal liability is embodied in the maxim,

’Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’. It means, the act does not constitute
guilt, unless done with a guilty mind. Thus there are two components for every
crime, namely a physical element and a mental element usually called actus
reus and mens rea respectively.

A crime is made up of five constituent parts, namely;

(1) Human action or inaction, which may be called a conduct.

(2) The result of such conduct.

(3) Such act is prohibited by law.

(4) The conduct must be foreseen.

(5) The result must be voluntary.

The actus reus is made up of the first three constituent parts. The last two
(4 and 5) constitute the mental element of criminal liability, known as
mens rea.

Actus Reus: The word actus reus denotes a deed i.e., a physical result of
conduct. Actus reus may be defined as such result of human conduct as the law
seeks to prevent. An act is defined as an event subject to the control of the will.
In other words an act means something voluntarily done.
E.g. A shoots B to death with rifle. The material elements of the act are: (a) its
origin, namely a series of muscular contraction by which the rifle is raised and
trigger is pulled; (b) the circumstances, the fact that the rifle is loaded and is in
working condition and that the person killed is within the range, and (c) the
consequences, the chief of which are the fall of trigger, the explosion of the
powder, the discharge of the bullet, the striking on the body of the victim and
resulting in his death. All these factors are implied in the statement ‘A killed B’
and they constitute an act.

To constitute a crime, there must always be a result brought about by

human conduct. Actus reus is the result of a human conduct and is an event.
For example, in the case of murder, it is the victim’s death brought about by the
conduct of the accused which is the actus reus.

Only those acts are crimes which the law has chosen to forbid. An act,
however reprehensible it may be, is not a crime unless prohibited by law. For
example no crime is committed when a soldier in a battle field shoots at the
enemy. The act being authorized by law, the killing is not the actus reus of
crime.

Mens Rea: In order to constitute a crime, menus rea is essential apart from
actus reus. In other words if there is no mens rea, no crime is constituted. For
instance, causing injury to an assailant in self-defence is no crime. But the
moment injury is caused with intent to take revenge, the act becomes criminal.

Mens rea is a technical term generally taken to mean some blame worthy
mental condition. It denotes an evil intention or a knowledge of the
wrongfulness of the act. In the Indian Penal Code, the word mens rea as such is
not used anywhere in the Code. But the words like intentionally, voluntarily,
negligently, fraudulently, dishonestly have been used to denote the mental
element in the definition of crimes. For instance, in the case of murder, mens
rea is the intent to cause death; in the case of theft an intention to steal; in the
case of rape an intention to have forcible sexual intercourse with a woman
without her consent; and in the case of receiving stolen goods, knowledge that
the goods were stolen.

The general rule that mens rea applies to all criminal offences is subject
to certain exceptions. In some offences the law holds a person responsible for
his criminal act without looking into his wrongful state of mind. Such offences
are termed as offences of strict liability. Under the Code, in offences like
waging war against the Govt. of India, sedition, kidnapping, abduction,
counterfeiting of coins and the like, the mental element is deliberately omitted
and in such offences no element of mens rea is required for the commission of
the offence. Other kinds of offences where mens rea is wholly excluded are:

a) Public welfare offences like social and economic offences, offences

relating to foods and drugs, road traffic and revenue offences, etc.

b) Public nuisance, contempt of court etc.

c) Violations of municipal laws and regulations etc.

2.Actuio personalis moritur cum persona: (A personal right of act dies with the
person)

The maxim relates to the extinction of liability of a person his death.

The personal representatives of the deceased can always sue for the
recovery of debts due to the deceased. But he cannot sue for the breaches which
caused mere personal injuries on the deceased.

The personal representatives are liable so far as they have assets on all the
covenants and contracts of the deceased execute in his life time. The action for
debt on simple contract, except for rent cannot be maintainable against the
deceased.

As soon as death occurs, the law divests the property right from the
deceased and vests it on the person representative.

No action will lie against the dead persons if the injury done by him to
another is capable only of attracting the claim for unliquidated damages.

Broom sums up the legal position thus “it was a rule in common law that
if an injury was done either to a person of property of another for which
damages only could be recoverable in satisfaction, the action died with the
person to whom or by whom the wrong was done”. But this rule was never
extended to such personal actions founded upon any obligation, contract, debt,
covenant, or any other similar duty to be performed, for the action survived.
3. Audi alteram partem (No man shall be condemned unheard)

No one is to be condemned, punished, or deprived of his life or property

in any judicial proceeding, unless he had an opportunity of being heard.

A decision made in violation of the above said rule maybe set aside. On
laying of charges, an opportunity to answer must be given to an individual
alleged to have committed an offence. Sufficient notice also should be given to
the person against whom the charge is laid. This rule has a universal acceptance
and sounded upon the plainest principle of justice. It is the cardinal principle of
law that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken should be given
a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. In civil courts, we follow Civil
Procedure Code. In criminal courts, we follow Criminal Procedure Code. They
contain the rules regarding the opportunity to be given to the parties. But there
is no uniform body procedural norms to be followed by other adjudicatory
bodies. The requirement of audi alteram partem has two elements (i) an
opportunity to make a representation must be given and (ii) such an opportunity
must be reasonable.

Before an adjudication starts, the authority must give a notice to the

affected party. Any proceeding taken without notice is violative of natural
justice. Issuing notice is the minimum requirement. It is the sine qua non of
fair hearing. Failure to serve notice would affect the right of the opposite party.
A notice to be valid and effective must be properly served on the concerned
party. It must provide sufficient time to the party to prepare his case. To call
upon a person to show cause immediately amount to denial of notice. A notice
must be adequate. A notice is bare bones language of the statute without facts is
insufficient and inadequate. The grounds stated in the notice must be clear
specific and unambiguous. The notice has to be served in a particular specific
mode.

Hearing is an important rule under audi alteram partem. What type of

hearing should be given, whether oral or written depends upon the facts and
circumstances of the case. What is absolutely necessary is that the affected
party should have an adequate opportunity to meet the case and present his
contention. If this can be achieved through written explanation that is
sufficient. If this minimum is not followed, the principle of natural justice is
violated.

4.Communis error facit jus (Common error sometimes possess current as law).

The law so favours the public good, that it will in some cases permit a
common error to pass for the right. For example a particular kind of fictitious
proceeding might have been allowed by the courts (in England) for a long time.
Because of this long usage, a person who was not entitled to dispose of lands,
was allowed to dispose of the lands even though he was only a tenant. This
was followed in England in ancient days.

But the maxim must be applied with great caution. Lord Ellenborough
once observed, ‘It has been sometimes said, communis error facit jus; but I say
‘communis opinio’ is evidence of what the law is-not where it is an opinion
merely speculative and theoretical, floating in the minds of persons; but where it
has been made the ground work and substratum of practice’.
 Mr. Justice Foster observed that he would never hear this rule; because it
would be set up a misconception of the law in destruction of law.

Lord Derma n observed that a large part of the legal opinion which has
passed current for Law taken for granted’; and that , when in the pursuit of
truth, we are obliged to investigate the grounds of the law, it is plain, and has
often proved by experience, that the mere repetition of the cantilena of lawyers-
cannot make it law, unless it can be traced to some competent authority, and if it
be irreconcilable to some clear legal principle’.

Because of the wrong decision of the courts and erroneous conception of

law, (especially of real property) that has been made for a length of time, the
basis upon which rights have been regulated and arrangements as to property
made, the maxim, communis error facit jus, may be applied. The
misconception must be there for a long time. If the courts have decline to
correct misconceptions of long standing, the reluctance is due to wholesome
fear of interference with rights based upon them.

5.Delegatus non potest delegare (A person who is delegate cannot himself

delegate his powers).

This means one agent cannot lawfully appoint another to perform the
duties his agency., This rule is applicable whenever the authority involves a
trust or discretion in the agent for the exercise of which he is selected. When no
matter of discretion, is involved and where it is immaterial whether the act has
been done by one person or another, the delegation is permissible.
 It is the general principle that certainly matters involving judicial powers,
trust and the exercise of discretion, or where the qualities of a delegate are
material, a delegate must act himself and must not delegate his functions to
another. The principle is not only extended to executive power but also to
administrative power.

When an act is only ministerial in character, the delegate can delegate his
power to another. An agent can employ another in respect of such acts for
which usually, and in the ordinary course of business an agent is employed. A
judicial officer cannot delegate his functions to be discharged by others.

6. Exnudo pacto non oritur action.(No cause of action arises form a bare
promise).

The maxim ’Ex nudo pacto non oritur actio’ means no cause of action
arises from a bare promise. The maxim as used by writers on Law of Contracts
bears a meaning widely different from that which has in Roman jurisprudence.
‘Blackstone observed: consideration of some sort or other is necessary to the
formation of a contract, that a nudum pactum, or agreement to do or pay
something on one side, without any compensation on the other, will not at law
support an action, and a man cannot be compelled to perform it. The nakedness
of promise consists in the absence of consideration, and not in the want of
formal conditions, such as writing or registration’.

In the Indian Contract Act consideration is defined as follows: “when at

the desire of the promisor, the promise or any other person has done or
abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or
abstains from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a
consideration for the promise”. Therefore if A promises to pay B a sum of
Rs.100/- for nothing, B neither doing nor promising anything in return or to
compensate A for his money, his promise or undertaking may indeed form the
subject of a moral obligation, and may be binding in honour, but it does not
create a legal responsibility.

7. Ex turpi causa non oritur action ( An action does not arise from a base
cause)

The maxim Ex turpi causa oritur action means an action does not arise
from a base cause. In law of tort, the damage caused to the plaintiff must be a
legal damage. It must be a legal injury. If the damage is caused because of
certain immoral act, no cause of action can be maintained. When this maxim is
applied, we will come to the conclusion that an action does not arise from a base
cause. Therefore if A is infected by B, her paramour with a venereal disease,
the existence of which was concealed by B, A is not entitled to sue B, because
an action does not arise from a immoral cause.

A and B fight with each other. Each one gives consent to the other.
Whether the consenting parties can recover damages from the other? No.
Consent for fighting in a public place is illegal. It is nullity. Therefore the suit
for damages would be dismissed based upon the principle, ‘an action does not
arise from an immoral cause’.

8.In pari delicto potiot est conditio defendatis (Where the parties are equally at
guilt, the party in possession is better placed).

The general rule is that possession constitutes a sufficient title against

every person not having a better title. Actual possession is prima facie evidence
of a legal title in the possessor. The rightful owner must assent his title in order
to divest a person in possession of the property.

If the plaintiff and defendant are equally a fault or they have committed
one wrong or other, the party in possession ofr the property will be allowed to
keep the property. He can continue the possession of the property till any other
rightful owner proves or asserts his title. The possessory title may, by passage
of time and negligence on the part of the rightful owner ripen into a perfect and
indefeasible right.

Mere possession of the property will support trespass. Trespass is a tort

against possession. Therefore he who commits a trespass upon the possession
of another, being himself a wrong doer, has no right to put the other party to
prove his title.

Buller.J. observed, “If a party comes to a court of justice to enforce an

illegal contract, two answers may be given to his demand: the one, that he must
draw justice from a pure fountain and the other, that potior est condition
possidentis.

9.Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus(False in one thig false in everything).

When the evidence is placed before the court either through the mouth of
a witness or by means of a document, the court has to use its skill and
experience to see the real truth and to rely on that part of the evidence which
appeal to it. The maxim ‘falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ means false in one
thing is false in everything. In England some importance is used to be attached
to the principle underlying the maxim, whereas in India it is not followed
implicity by the courts. It is impossible to come across a witness whose
evidence does not contain a grain of untruth. It is the duty of the court to
scrutinies the evidence carefully and separate the grain from the chaff. This
maxim can, however, apply only when the one thing, about which a falsehood is
established, is of such an important nature as to throw suspicion upon the entire
evidence, and not on some minor or collateral matter.

10.Ganeralia specialibus non derogant: (General things do not derogate from

special things)

The maxim means general things do not derogate from special.

Ordinarily special Acts are not repealed by general Acts. If there is an express
reference to the previous legislation or a necessary inconsistency of the two
Acts standing together, then the maxim will not apply.

The general rule, that prior statute are held to be repealed by implication
by subsequent statute if the two are repugnant, is said not to apply if the prior
enactment is special and the subsequent enactment is general. The rule was laid
down by Lord Selborne. He observed that- “where there are general words in a
later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them
to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that
earlier and special legislation indirectly repealed, altered or derogated from
merely by force of such general words, without any indication of a particular
intention to do so”. There is a well known principle that a subsequent general
Act does not affect a prior special Act by implication.
 The general maxim is, Generalia specialibus non derogant’ which means
general provisions will not abrogate special provisions. When the legislature
has given its attention to a separate subject and made provision for it, the
presumption is that a subsequent general enactment is not intended to interfere
with the special provision unless it manifests that intention very clearly. Each
enactment must be construed in that respect according to its own subject matter
and its own terms.

But a general statute may repeal a particular or special statute. If a

special enactment, and a subsequent general Act are absolutely repugnant and
inconsistent with each other, the courts have no alternative but to declare the
prior special enactment repealed by the subsequent general Act. For example
the provisions of local Act, under which certain arrangements had been made
for maintain borough prisoners in country goals were repealed by Section 18 of
General Prisons Act, 1842 (of England).

The Criminal Evidence Act (of England) was [passed in the year 1898. It
susperseded all prior special rules as to evidence by the accused in criminal
cases created by previous statutes in the case of particular specified offences.

11. Ignorantia facti excusat, ingorantia juris non excusat.(IgnoraNCE OF

FACT EXCUSES, Ignorance of law does not excuse).

Ignorantia facti excuast means ignorance of fact is an excuse. Ignorantia

juris non excuast means ignorance of law does not excuse.
 Ignorance may be either of law or of fact. For example, if the heir is
ignorant of the death of his ancestor, he is ignorant of a fact, but if, being aware
of the death, and of his own relationship, he is nevertheless ignorant that certain
rights have thereby become vested in himself, then, he is ignorant of law.

Ignorance of a material fact may excuse a party from the legal

consequences of his conduct. For example A fires a bullet into a bush, where
unknown to him B is lying hid and the bullet kill B. It is true that A fired
intentionally into bush but no sensible person would say that A fired
intentionally at B.

Ignorance of law, is not a defence. Every man is presumed to know the

law of the land. Ignorance of law does not afford any amount of excuse
whatsoever. Foe example a sailor has been convicted of an offence that had
been forbidden only by an Act of Parliament of which he could not possibly
know, since it was enacted when he was far away a sea and the offence was
committed before the news of its enactment could reach him.

12.Injuria non remota causa, sed proxima spectator (In law, the immediate not
remote cause, of any event is regarded).

This maxim is often used in marine insurance. In order to entitle the

assured to recover upon his policy, the lo0ss must be direct and not too remote,
consequence of the perils insured against, and that if the proximate cause of the
loss sustained be not reducible to one of the perils mentioned in the policy, the
underwriter is not liable. For example, a merchant ship is taken into by a ship
of war, and thus exposes to tempestuous sea, the loss then arising is probably
attributable to the perils of the sea.
 The maxim is also applied to actions founded on negligence. The
plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate not
merely a remoter cause of the damage.

The maxim has an important application in connection with the measure

of damages.

The maxim has no application in criminal cases and fraud.

13. Omina preaesummuntur contra spoliatorem (All the things are presumed
against a wrong doer)

The maxim means that all things are presumed against a wrong doer or
every [resumption is made against a wrong doer.

If a man by his own tortious act, withhold the evidence by which the
nature of his act would be manifested, very presumption to his disadvantage
will be adopted. If a party has the means in his power of rebutting and
explaining the evidence adduced against him, if it does not tend to the truth, the
omission to do so furnishes a strong inference against him. Therefore, where a
person who has wrongfully, as converted property does not produce it, it shall
be presumed, as against him to be of the best description.

So also, if a man withhold an agreement under which he is chargeable,

after a notice to produce, it is presumed, as against him that the agreement has
been properly stamped, until the contrary appear. If a public officer, such as
Sheriff produces an instrument, the execution of which he was bound to procure
it is presumed against him that the instrument has been duly executed.

14. Qui facit per alium per se. (He who does an act through another is deemed
in law to do it himself).

The maxim means that he who does an act through another does it
himself. The master’s liability for act of the servant has its origin in this
maxim. A master authorises a servant to perform an act or series of acts. The
master believes the servant. The master outs the servant in his place to do his
acts in his absence. The master trusts the servant. Therefore the master is
answerable for the wrong of the servant. If the servant has acted on his own
caprice, then the master would not be liable. So also if the servant had acted
beyond the course of the employment, the master would not be liable.

15.Respondent superior (Let the principal be held responsible)

The meaning of this maxim is ‘Let the superior be responsible’. The

master is responsible for every wrong of the servant or agent committed in the
course of the employment. The maxim has its origin in the legal presumption
that acts done by the agent or servant in and about his master’s business are
done by the master’s express or implied authority. They are in truth the act of
the master. Therefore the superior, the master, would be liable.

There are two reasons for recognising this principle

i. There is the difficulty in the way of proving authority, and

ii. That the masters and not their servants are financially
capable of bearing the burden of civil liability.
 In absence of the above rule, a rich man would appoint a poor man to do
a civil wrong and the rich would go scot-free. The affected party would not get
compensation.

16. Res ipsa loquitur (The thing itself speaks)

The onus of proving negligence lies upon the party who alleges it. To
establish a case, the plaintiff must prove negligence by adducting reasonable
evidence of it. The rule that in an action for negligence, the In absence of the
above rule, a rich man would appoint a poor man to do civil wrong and the rich
would go scot-free. The affected party would not plaintiff must prove
negligence, may cause considerable hardship in cases where the plaintiff can
prove the accident, but cannot show how it had happened, the fact being solely
outside his knowledge and within the knowledge of the defendant who causes it.
In such circumstances, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and
nothing more because there is a presumption of negligence according to the
maxim. Res ipsa loquitur means the thing speaks for itself. Such types of
presumptions arise when the cause of the accident was apparently under the
control of the defendant or his servants. The accident itself constitutes
reasonable evidence of negligence in the particular circumstances. There are
three essentials for the application of this maxim:

1. The thing causing the damage must be under the control of

the defendant or his servants.

2. The accident must be such as would not, in the ordinary

course of things, have happened without negligence.

3. There must be no evidence of the actual cause of the

accident.
Illustration: A was passing along the street and when he came near B’s shop, he
was injured by the fall of a barrel of flour which rolled out of a window on the
second floor. There was no evidence on the part of the plaintiff as to how the
accident happened, except the facts that while on the road he was knocked down
by the barrel, became unconscious and was injured. It was held that the
accident alone was prima facie evidence of negligence and the maxim will
apply.

17. Sic Utere tuo ut alienum non leades (Enjoy your property in such a manner
as not to injure that of another person)

Absolute Liability: Wrongs of absolute liability imposes a type of

liability in which the person becomes liable without there being any fault on his
part. In these cases the liability of the defendant is strict or absolute. That is
why it is called strict liability or absolute liability. In these cases, the wrong
arises from the breach of absolute duty. An absolute duty is one in which a
person will be liable irrespective of any fault on his part. The injured party need
not prove any negligence, intention or means rea on the part of the defendant.
The following five types of torts will comes under the category of absolute
liability:

1. Cases relating to escape of dangerous things.

2. Cases relating to escape of animals.

3. Case relating to dangerous premises.

4. Cases relating to the use of things which are specially

dangerous e.g. fire, explosive etc.

5. Persons professing skill.

 The strict principle of law is embodied in the maxim sic utere tuo ut
alienum non leadas. It means enjoy your property in such a manner as no

into injure that of another person. If we apply this maxim to lands and other
properties of like nature the plaintiff must prove that (1) he has sustained
damage and (2) the defendant has caused it by going beyond what is necessary
in order to enable him to have the natural use of his land.

The owner or occupier of land may use it for any lawful object. If there
is the natural use, then the owner will not be liable. When there is some
negligence, the owner will be liable. But if the defendant brings some new
article into the land it will be termed as the non-natural use of the land. If it
escapes and causes damages to the neighbours the owner or the occupier will be
liable the owner or the occupier will be liable.

The case of Rylands v. Fletcher establishes the principle that the person
who, for hid own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there
anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril and he is
prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of
its escape. A person will be strictly liable if he brings beasts, water, filth,
strench, traction engine, motor car or electricity. It is not necessary for the court
to analyse whether the defendant was aware of the dangerous quality of the
things used by him.

18. Ubi jusi ibi remedium (Every right has remedy)

 The maxim means that ‘whenever there is a legal right, there is a legal
remedy’. It is also explained as ‘there is no wrong without a remedy’. Jus
means the right of action in a court. The principle enumerated in the maxim is
that if a man has a right , he must, as a matter of course, have means to enforce
it. He can avail a remedy if he is injured in the exercise of it. It is a vain thing
to imagine a right without a remedy. The right infringed must be a legal right.
The remedy prayed for must be a legal remedy.

The maxim does not lay down that there is a legal remedy for every
wrong. There are many political, moral and religious wrongs. But they are not
recognised by law. Therefore they are not actionable. In this connection
Justice Stephen observed that it would be correctly intelligible if it were said
‘where there is no legal remedy, there is no legal wrong’.

19. Volenti non fit injuria (Damage suffered by consent is not a cause of
action).

The maxim volenti non fit injuria means that an act is not actionable as a
tort as the instance of any person who has expressly or impliedly consented to
it. When a person has given permission, leave or licence to do a wrongful act,
he cannot later complain of it as an injury. If he has given up the right, he
cannot enforce it at a later time.

The maxim can be applied under two circumstance

(a) It applies to intentional acts which would otherwise be tortious (e.g.)

consent to physical harm which would otherwise be an assault and
consent to enter on a land which would otherwise be a trespass.
 (b) The maxim applies to consent to run the risk of accidental harm which
would otherwise be actionable due to the negligence of the person
who caused it. (e.g.) A master is not liable for an injury inflicted on a
servant, who has undertaken the services knowing the risks attached

there to. Moreover the maxim will apply to the spectators who many watch
football or kabaddi. By the application of this maxim, sufficient protection is
also available to surgeons or dentist.

But, mere knowledge of an impending wrongful act does not amount to

consent, The maxim is volenti non fit injuria and not scienti non fit inuria.
Scienti means knowledge. The maxim applies only when there is an express or
implied agreement to run the risk.

The maxim does not apply in the following four circumstances:

(1) No consent can legalise an unlawful act (e.g.) A fight, with

sharp swords, where such a flight is prohibited be law.

(2) The maxim has no validity against an action based on a breach

of statutory duty.

(3) The maxim does not apply where the plaintiff has under an
exigency caused by the defendant’s wrongful mis-conduct,
consciously and deliberately faced a risk even of death, to
rescue another from imminent danger or personal injury or
death.

(4) The maxim does not apply to cases of negligence.

20.Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex (Reason is the soul of law, and when
the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself).

Every law has an objective, When the objective of a law is fulfilled, the
law is no longer in need. Under old English Law of Torts, the husband was
made liable for post nuptial torts of his wife. Whenever a claim for tortious act
is levelled against a married woman, her husband was also made a necessary
party to the suit. To circumvent this difficulty Married Woman’s Property Act
was passed in 1882. Under this Act, a married woman can be sued, without
making her husband a necessary party. Here the reason of the earlier rule of the
Law of Torts ceased the operate on the adoption of the new Act of Parliament.
Thus the old rule itself ceased to operate.

The privilege of the member of Parliament that he should not be arrested

for a criminal case when the Parliament is in session is also based on this
maxim. After the completion of 40 days from the last date of parliamentary
session, the member of Parliament can be arrested for a criminal case. Because,
the public has no longer an immediate interest in the personal freedom of the
member of Parliament when the session is over. Only on this reasoning, some
temporary privilege has been conferred on the member of Parliament, When
they are no longer immediately in need, the reason of the legal rule which
prevented the temporary arrest of a member of parliament ceases to exit, so also
the application of the rule.

21. Salus populi est suprema lex(|Regard for the public welfare is the highest
law)

This maxim is based on the implied agreement of every member of the

society that his own individual welfare would yield to that of community in
cases of necessity. Under certain circumstance for the sake of public good, life,
liberty and property of an individual are sacrificed.

This principle justifies the commission of private injury for the sake of
public good. For example, pulling down of a house, in order to arrest the
progress of a fire with a view to safeguard many of the houses in the locality is
legally justifiable.

Similarly, when the highway is under repair, the user of the road may
lawfully use the adjoining private land since the derivation of private right is
only for the welfare of the public.

However, the private rights are sacrificed only to the extent the public
good warrants for it.

The acquisition of private lands for the public purposes is justified only
under this maxim.

22. Novus actus interveniens (a new act intervening)

A consequence will be considered too remote if the chain of causation

between the defendant’s act and the plaintiff’s damage is broken by the
intervention of a new act. In such cases there is a break in the chain of
causation due to an intervening act. A third party may, at times, snap the chain
of causation by deliberately intervening and thereby making himself more than
a conduit pipe between the original wrongdoer and the ultimate damage. For
example A tries to cause some wrong to C, B intervenes and causes a tort to C.
The act of B becomes a new and independent cause. B snaps the chain of
causation, and so B is liable for the wrong committed by him. In remoteness of
damage it is known as isolation test. If the new and independent act is an act of
violation not automatic, reflex or without consciousness of what the actor was
doing, the original wrongdoer A will be absolved from responsibility.

But there should be clear evidence to show that the first man’s act has no
direct bearing on the result.

E.g. (1) A was engaged in beating B to death and C, a stranger,

intervened and added some more blows to B and if B died, both A and C would
be guilty of murder. A would not be allowed to plead the defence that it was
C’s t

Stroke that finally ended B’s life.

E.g. (2) A was incharge of a steam engine. He stopped the engine and
went away. During his absence B set the engine in motion. By the act death
ensued to C. Here death was the consequence, not of the act of A, but of B who
set the engine in motion after A had gone away.

22. Rex non potest peccare (The king can do no wrong)

This is the fundamental principle of English Constitutional Law. Law

presumes that king, as a fountain of justice, is incapable not only of doing
wrong, but even thinking of wrong. Therefore, king cannot be attributed to any
legal injury. It does not mean that king is above law. But it means only that his
ministers are held liable for the advise given by them, which result in an illegal
act. Afterall the Crown is created for the benefit of the people, hence the
presumption.

Even a grant obtained from the King by deception is valid. Because law
presumes that all the actions of the King is supported by law. However, this
rule is not applicable when a grant is obtained by an act of Legislature.

The principle, King can do no wrong, led to the institution of Petition of

Right, which founded upon the theory that the King, of his own free will,
graciously orders right to be done.

The maxim respondent superior, has no application when the servants of

the Crown commit a tort. Because law pr=resumes that King never
commandeth a wrong. Hence, the servant being tortfeasor will be held liable in
law of torts. However now, King is made liable for certain acts committed by
his servants under the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947.

Similarly, in the absence of some statutory provisions to the contrary, the

servants of the Crown, civil as well as military can be dismissed irrespective of
their contract of employment with the crown for a fixed period.

24. Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subsenient. (The laws assists those
who are vigilant, no thos3e who asleep over their rights)

The courts of justice require that parties to a litigation shall exercise due
degree of vigilance and caution. The maxim means that law would help those
person who aslwwp over their rights.
 Limitations have been prescribed in laws for taking cognizance of cases.
In the ancient possessory actions, “there was a time of limitation settled, beyond
which no man should avail himself of the possession of himself or his ancestors,
or take advantage of the wrongful possession of his adversary; because if he
were negligent for along and unreasonable time, the law refused afterwards to
lend him any assistance to recover the possession”.

In the Limitation Act 1963, limitation has been prescribed for various
steps to be taken by the parties. If a party has not taken the appropriate step
within the time, he cannot enforce his right at a later time unless he has a
sufficient reason for no taking the steps.

Limitation has been prescribed in criminal law also. If an offence is

punishable with fine only, then the offence must be taken cognizance of by the
court within six months from the date of the commission of the offence. This
will accelerate the activities of the investigating agency. If the matter is not sent
to the court within six months then, the State loses the right to prosecute the
offender.

25. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat (It is better for a thing to have effect than
to be made void)

This maxim deals with the general principles of construction of deed. In

matters relating to contract or agreement also this rule of construction is used.
According to this maxim, an instrument must be interpreted so as to allow it to
serve the purpose for which it is designed.
 The Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 has recognized and adopted this maxim.
According to this, in determining whether the signature on a bill if that of the
principal or that of the agent by whose hand it is written, then construction most
favourable to the validity of the instrument shall be adopted.

The maxim has been put in use in Private International Law also.
According to a rule of Private International0 Law, when a law governing a
contract containing foreign elements and the contract is valid under one law and
invalid under another, it is presumed that the parties intended to apply, the law
under which the contract is valid. The other name for this principle is the
doctrine of efficacy.