The presentation deals with some legal maxims used in India starting from what is a legal maxim to some legal maxims used in Indian Courts viz. Actus Dei Nemini Injuriam , Actori incumbit onus probandi , Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona , Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea , Assignatus utitur jure auctoris etc .with their English meaning and related case law.

1. Legal Maxims In
India
Dr. Ashis Dash
1

2. What is legal maxim ?
 A legal maxim is an established principle or proposition of law or a legal policy
usually stated in Latin form. Most of these Latin maxims originated from the
Medieval era in the European states that used Latin as their legal language. These
principles guides Courts all over the world in applying the existing laws in a fair and
just manner to enable the Courts in deciding issues before it. Such principles don't
have the authority of law but when Courts apply the maxims in deciding issues of
law or the legislature incorporates such maxims while framing laws, they take the
form of law and form the basis of sound judgements.
2

3. Some legal maxims followed by Courts in India
Actus Dei Nemini Injuriam -law holds no man responsible for the Act of God.
Court held strike to be an act of god and held the maxim Actus Dei Nemini Facit
Injuriam squarely applicable to such cases. Court further stated that in abnormal
situations like strike in question, which can hardly be resisted by any litigant by
applying any amount of skill or ability of his own, the courts should not insist for strict
adherence to the procedural law so as to prejudice the interest of such litigants. In
legal sense such incidents are well covered by the expression "Acts of God." – Mali
Ram Mahabir Prasad Vs Shanti Debi & Ors., MANU/BH/0010/1992: AIR 1992 PAT 66.
3

4. Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit – An Act of the Court shall prejudice no man
 This principle has been held to be fundamental to the system of justice and
application to Indian Jurisprudence – that no man should suffer because of the fault
of the court or delay in the procedure – Busching Schmitz Private Limited Vs P.T.
Menghani & Ors., MANU/SC/0344/1977: AIR 1977 SC 1569: 1977 (2) SCC 835.
 Supreme Court used the legal phrase "actus curiae neminem gravabit" in support of
its conclusion that the legislature could not have intended to put a period of
limitation on the act of the court of taking cognizance of an offence so as to defeat
the case of the complainant – Bharat Damodar Kale & Ors. Vs State of A.P.,
MANU/SC/0794/2003: AIR 2003 SC 4560: 2003 (8) SCC 559.
4

5. Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona – A personal right of action dies with the person.
 Supreme Court held that the maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona" – a
personal action dies with the person – has a limited application – operates in a
limited class of actions such as:
 actions for damages for defamation, actions for assault or actions for other
personal injuries not causing the death of the party, and in other actions where
after the death of the party the relief granted could not be enjoyed or granting it
would be nugatory.
 It was held that an action for account is not an action for damages ex delicto, and
does not fall within the enumerated classes. Nor is it such that the relief claimed
being personal could not be enjoyed after death, or granting it would be nugatory
– Girja Nandini Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra Narain Choudhury,
MANU/SC/0287/1966: AIR 1967 SC 1124: 1967 (1) SCR 93.
5

6. Actori incumbit onus probandi – the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff
The cardinal principle of law of evidence is that "Actori incumbit
onus probandi" – The burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff –
Indra Raja & Ors. Vs John Yesurethinam, MANU/TN/4369/2011.
6

7. Actio personalis moritur cum persona – a personal action dies with the person
This rule operates in a limited class of actions ex delicto such as actions for
damages for defamation, assault or other personal injuries not causing the death
of the party, and in other actions where after the death of the party the relief
granted could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory. An action for
account is not an action for damages ex delicto, and does not fall within the
enumerated classes. Nor is it such that the relief claimed being personal could
not be enjoyed after death, or granting it would be nugatory. Death of the person
liable to render an account for property received by him does not therefore affect
the liability of his estate – Girja Nandini Devi & Ors. Vs Bijendra Narain
Choudhury, MANU/SC/0287/1966: AIR 1967 SC 1124: 1967 (1) SCR 93.
7

8. Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea – The intent and act must both concur to constitute the crime
Criminal guilt would attach to a man for violations of criminal law. However, the rule
is not absolute and is subject to limitations indicated in the Latin maxim, actus non
facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. It signifies that there can be no crime without a guilty
mind. To make a person criminally accountable, it must be proved that an act, which
is forbidden by law, has been caused by his conduct, and that the conduct was
accompanied by a legally blameworthy attitude of mind. thus, there are two
components of every crime, a physical element and a mental element, usually
called actus reus and mens rea respectively – R.Balakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala,
MANU/SC/0212/2003: 2003 (9) SCC 700: 2003 (2) SCR 436.
8

9. Assignatus utitur jure auctoris – an assignee is clothed with the rights of his principal
A leading rule concerning alienations and forfeitures
is “assignatus utitur jure auctoris” – an assignee is clothed with
the rights of his principal – K. Subbanna Rai Vs Deranna Rai &
Ors., MANU/KE/2503/2010.
9

10. Affirmatis est probare – he who affirms must prove and Affirmanti non
neganti incumbit Probatio – the burden of proof lies upon him who
asserts and not upon him who denies.
• Madras High Court followed the above 2 maxims for arriving at its conclusion
that it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove his case. The burden of proof
is ambulatory. It reiterated the law on the point that the initial burden of proof is
only on the plaintiff, who should enter into the box and prove his title positively –
Pappannan & Ors. Vs Kolandasamy, MANU/TN/1886/2012: 2012 (7) Mad
LJ 693
• High Courts assessed the evidence led by the parties, including the plaintiff by
applying the above 2 principles – (i) Ramaiyan Chinnadurai & Ors. Vs
Ramamirtham, MANU/TN/8822/2019; Arjunan Vs Munusamy & Ors.,
MANU/TN/0233/2013; (ii) Balbir Singh Vs Ganga Vishan,
MANU/DE/1141/2015
10

11. Caveat venditor – seller beware
• The concept of ‘as is where is’ and ‘as is what is’ basis has lost its significance
in the current commercial milieu and the principle of caveat venditor is more on
the rise as compared to the outdated principle of caveat emptor. The Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, requires the seller to own up to certain duties and it is not
open to a responsible bank to take an innocent auction purchaser for a ride by
selling to him a tainted property and thereafter claim protection under the
principles of ‘buyer beware’ – (i) Mandava Krishna Chaitanya Vs UCO Bank,
Asset Management Branch, MANU/AP/0087/2018 (DB); (ii) V. Ravi Kumar
Vs UCO Bank, MANU/AP/0398/2018 (DB).
• Various judgments of SC and HC have replaced the rule of caveat emptor
by caveat venditor and when a property is put to sale, the Bank is under
statutory obligation to sell the secured asset with clear title free from any
encumbrance – The Corporation Bank & Ors. Vs Jayesh Kumar Jha,
MANU/WB/2300/2019; Rekha Sahu Vs UCO Bank & Ors.,
MANU/UP/1191/2013
11

12. Delegatus non potest delegare – In the absence of power, a delegate
cannot sub-delegate its power to another person.
A 7 Judge Constitution bench of Supreme Court held that no legislative body can
delegate to another department of the government, or to any other authority, the
power, either generally or especially, to enact laws which embody the principle
underlying the maxim, delegatus non-protest delegate. The Court further clarified
that all that it means is that the legislature cannot abdicate its legislative functions
and it cannot efface itself and set up a parallel legislature to discharge the primary
duty with which it has been entrusted – In Re: The Delhi Laws Act, 1912,
MANU/SC/0010/1951: AIR 1951 SC 332: 1951 (2) SCR 747
12

13. Ei incumbit probation, qui dicit, non qui negat – burden of proof lies upon
him who asserts and not upon him who denies.
The general rule as to the onus of proof is, that the proof of any particular fact
lies on the party who alleges it, not on him who denies it, “ei incumbit probatio
qui dicit, non qui negat”. The reason for the rule is, first that it is but just that he
who invokes the aid of the law should be the first to prove his case, and,
secondly, that a negative is more difficult to establish than an affirmative. These
principles have been clearly laid down in Sections 101 and 103 of the Evidence
Act – Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Vs Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel &
Ors., MANU/GJ/0774/2018.
13

14. Ejusdem Generis – Of the same class, or kind.
A 5 judge Constitution bench held that the rule under the maxim is that when general
words follow particular and specific words of the same nature, the general words must
be confined to the things of the same kind as those specified. As laid down clearly by
decided cases, the specific words must form a distinct genus or category –
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni & Ors. Vs The State of Madras & Ors.,
MANU/SC/0019/1960: AIR 1960 SC 1080: 1960 (3) SCR 887.
14

15. Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus – False in one thing, false in everything.
This maxim has been held not applicable in India and the witnesses cannot be branded
as liars. It was held that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has not received
general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a Rule of law. It is
merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be
disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the
question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances,
but it is not what may be called “a mandatory Rule of evidence”. Merely because some
of the Accused persons have been acquitted, though the evidence against all of them,
so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary corollary
that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted – (i) Rizan & Anr. Vs State
of Chhattisgarh, MANU/SC/0036/2003: (2003) 2 SCC 661; (ii) Krishna Mochi & Ors.
Vs. The state of Bihar, MANU/SC/0327/2002: AIR 2002 SC 1965: 2002 (6) SCC 81:
2002 (3) SCR 1.
Thank You!!!
15