A PROJECT

ON

USHABEN VS. BHAGYALAXMI CHITRA MANDIR

SUBJECT : LAW OF TORTS

(Submitted as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for B.A. LL. B (Hons.) 5 Year Course)

SESSION : 2022- 2023

SUBMITTED ON : 7th JAN 2023

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

CHETANA POONIA Professor Mr.BALKESH
ROLL NO.= 043 YADAV SIR
Semester = 1 A (Faculty, Law of Torts)

UNIVERSITY FIVE YEAR LAW COLLEGE

UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JAIPUR

1
 DECLARATION

I, Chetana Poonia, hereby declare that project titled “Case Analysis of Ushaben V.
Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir” is based on the original research carried out by me under the
guidance and supervision of Professor Balkesh Yadav, Faculty of Law of Torts at University
Five Year Law College. The interpretations and inferences put forth are based on my reading,
understanding and comprehension of the original text. The book, article, website and any other
literary resources used or are relied upon by me have been duly acknowledged by me at the
respective places with the text.

For the present project which I am submitting to the University, no degree or diploma has been
conferred on me before, either in this or in any University.

DATE = 7th JANUARY 2023

SIGNATURE

(CHETANA POONIA)

2
 CERTIFICATE

Professor Mr.Balkesh Yadav DATE= 7th JANUARY 2023

Faculty

University Five Year Law College

University of Rajasthan, Jaipur

This is to certify that Miss Chetana Poonia student of I Semester, Section A of University Five

Year Law College, University of Rajasthan has carried out the project titled “Case Analysis of

Ushaben V. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir” under my supervision and guidance. It is an

investigation report of minor project. The student has completed research work in stipulated time

and according to norms prescribed for the purpose.

SIGNATURE

(PROFESSOR MR. BALKESH YADAV)

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have written this project, “Case Analysis of Ushaben V. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir” under
the supervision of Professor Balkesh Yadav, Faculty, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. His
valuable suggestions herein have not only helped me immensely in making this project but also
in developing an analytical approach towards this project.

I would also like to present my gratitude to Hon’ble Director Dr. Akhil Kumar for her
consistent support during the preparation of this project.

I am extremely grateful to all the librarians and library staff of the college for the support and
cooperation extended by them from time to time.

SIGNATURE

(CHETANA POONIA)

4
 CONTENT

DECLARATION ……………………………………………………………… 2

CERTIFICATE …………………………………………………………………3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……………………………………………………..4

TABLE OF CONTENT ………………………………………………………..5

INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………..6

FACTS OF THE CASE ………………………………………………………..7-8

ISSUES RAISED ………………………………………………………………9

JUDGMENT …………………………………………………………..……….10

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE…………………………………………………….11

CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………….12

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………….13

5
 INTRODUCTION

This case came under the Damnum Sine Injuria

Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim, which refers to injury which is being suffered by the plaintiff
but there is no violation of any legal right of a person. In such circumstances, where there is no
violation of the legal right of but the injury, or damage is being suffered by the plaintiff, the
plaintiff can’t bring an action against the other for the same, as it is not actionable in law, unless
there is some infringement of a legal right is present. It is not actionable in law even if the act so
did was intentional and was done to cause injury to others but without infringing on the legal
right of the person.

In the case the plaintiffs sued for a permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them
from exhibiting the film named “Jai Santoshi Maa”. It was contended that the film hurt the
religious feelings of the plaintiff insofar as Goddesses Saraswati, Laxmi and Parvati were
depicted as jealous and were ridiculed. It was observed that hurt to religious feelings had not
been recognized as a legal wrong. Moreover, no person has a legal right to enforce his religious
views on another or to restrain another from doing a lawful act, merely because it did not fit in
with the tenets of his particular religion. Since there was no violation of legal right, request of
injunction was rejected.

Plaintiff : Ushaben
Defendant : Bhagyalaxmi chitra mandir
Equivalent citations : AIR 1978 Guj 13, (1977) GLR 424
Bench : A Desai ( Gujarat High Court)
Case decided on : 12 February 1976

6
 FACTS OF THE CASE

Defendant-respondent No. 1 is a name and style of business carried on by

defendant-respondent No. 2, who had produced the said movie “Jai Santoshi Maa”.

The plaintiffs appellants filed Civil Suit No. 2736 of 1975 in the City Civil Court,
Ahmedabad on Sept. 10, 1975 claiming a permanent injunction against the defendants'
respondents restraining them from exhibiting the cinematographic picture named “Jai
Santoshi Maa”.

Defendant-respondent No. 3 is the Director of the movie and defendant-respondent No. 4

had written the theme.

Defendant-respondent No. 5 is the distributor and defendants-respondents Nos. 6 to 14

are the theaters wherein the aforesaid movie was exhibited in the City of Ahmedabad.

Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have produced the said film taking the basis of the story of
Santoshi Mata which is familiar to those observing the Vrat.

7
 The sad story in short is that an old lady has 7 sons, out of which she has more affection
for 6 sons, and the seventh was not a favorite son. The old lady used to serve food to the
7th son which remained after serving dinner to the 6 sons. The seventh son was a
simpleton and was not aware of the discrimination but his wife was intelligent and sharp.
She informed her husband about the discrimination and after having been convinced
about such discrimination the seventh son went away to a distant city and obtained
service in a shop. In course of time, because of his honesty and efficiency he became a
big businessman.

She was very badly treated and was given only a piece of bread and water in a broken
dish. She saw some ladies observing the Vrat of Santoshi Mata and after asking them
about the same she went to the temple of Santoshi Mata after taking gram and gur and
commenced observing the Vrat.

The scenes in the present movie have hurt religious feelings of the appellants and other
Hindus and have caused them mental pain and strain.

In the present case there is infringement of legal rights of the appellants and other
Hindus. There is damage to their feelings because the religious feelings are hurt which
cannot be compensated in money. In this case there is an actionable tort. The scenes
depicting the Gods and Goddesses as jealous and wherein they are ridiculed are offensive
and indecent and religious feelings of the appellants and other Hindus have been hurt.
This act of the defendants amounts to nuisance which is an actionable wrong. The
misrepresentation made by the defendants that the story of the movie is based upon
mythology though in fact it is not so, is also a tort.

8
 ISSUES RAISED

1. The issue was whether the present claim of the plaintiffs was of a civil nature.

2. The second issue was that religious feelings of an individual is a part of civil rights
and any hurt to it is an actionable one.

3. The third issue was that certificate for exhibition of the movie granted by the Central
Government clothes the production and exhibition of the movie with the authority and
sanction of the State and law and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to protection of
rights under Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution from infringement by any act which
bears the impression of the State.

4. The fourth issue was of Mr. Modi that the movie depicts Gods and Goddesses as
jealous, they are ridiculed and there is a misrepresentation, because it is stated that the
movie is based upon mythology and as a result religious feelings of the appellants and
other Hindus are hurt.

9
 JUDGEMENT

After hearing both the parties the learned City Civil Judge discharged the rule on the ground that
the subject-matter of the suit did not involve any civil right of the plaintiffs and consequently did
not fall under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned trial Judge concluded that the
title of the movie and the advertising literature thereof clearly indicated that the movie was
religious and mythological and it was natural that any person interested in mythology and when
attracted and saw the picture, it would hurt his religious belief. This order refused the temporary
injunction which is challenged in the appeal. The suit had been filed by the plaintiffs with mala
fide intention and to harass the defendants, adding that defendant No. 1 had information that the
plaintiffs have previously filed a suit against the film named “Har Har Mahadev.” It is admitted
by the defendants that some mythological books do not refer to the incidents of Santoshi Maa.
The said film discloses in the very beginning that the entire film is imaginary and it would be
fallacy to appreciate the said film with reference to mythological books. The defendants state
that it is usual and normal to show in religious and mythological films certain incidents which go
to show that Gods or Goddesses are trying to test the sincerity of the devotee and to that end, the
devotee is made to suffer misery and humiliation. The film is being exhibited after the Board of
Censor has given certificate under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. In order to grant a temporary
injunction the principle of balance of injury is a material one. On this point the learned trial
Judge has given the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and it is attacked in this Court. The
learned Judge came to the following conclusions: “In fact a folk story prevalent for the last about
50 years has been mingled by the author with mythological taint to impress upon the audience to
feel that the theme being shown to them is a part and parcel of mythology. The result, therefore,
is that this appeal of the plaintiffs is dismissed and the impugned order of the learned trial Judge
is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs of this appeal

10
 ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

The defendants have the right to exhibit the film in pursuance of the certificate of exhibition
obtained by them. The film is not publicly exhibited, it means that it is not being shown to those
who do not want to see it. It is being shown on payment, people have to use their volition to see
the picture. There is no compulsion to see the film. If the feelings of the plaintiffs are hurt they
may not see the film again. The plaintiffs may propagate against the picture urging the fellow
religionists not to see it. It may be that the religious feeling of the plaintiffs is hurt, but
considering all the material circumstances of the case as stated herein above, I am of the view
that balance of convenience is in favor of defendants. The expression of opinion herein before is
for the purpose of temporary injunction only. The judgment given by the court was totally fair
and just as there was no infringement of legal right and the substantial damages caused, i.e. the
hurt caused to the religious feelings of the plaintiff was in particular and not as a whole.

11
 CONCLUSION

Title of the case: No person has a legal right to enforce his religious views on another

Name of the case: Ushaben Navinchandra Trivedi And vs Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir
(1976)

Facts of the case:The plaintiffs sued for a permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain
them from exhibiting the film named “Jai Santoshi Maa”. It was contended that the film hurt the
religious feelings of the plaintiff in so far as Goddesses Saraswati, Laxmi, and Parvati were
depicted as jealous and were ridiculed

Issue:The issue was whether the claim of the plaintiffs was of a civil nature. The second issue
was that the religious feeling of an individual is a part of civil rights and any hurt to it is an
actionable one.The third issue was that the certificate for the exhibition of the movie granted by
the Central Government clothes the production and exhibition of the movie with the authority
and sanction of the State and law and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to the protection of
rights under Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution from infringement by any act which bears the
impression of the State.Ratio: The film was not publicly exhibited, it was only shown on
payment. This means people who do not want to see there is no compulsion to see the film.The
learned trial Judge concluded that the title of the movie and the advertising literature thereof
clearly indicated that the movie was religious and mythological and it was natural that any
person interested in mythology and when attracted and saw the picture, would hurt his religious
belief. The said film discloses in the very beginning that the entire film is imaginary and it would
be a fallacy to appreciate the said film with reference to mythological books. The film is being
exhibited after the Board of Censors has given a certificate under the Cinematograph Act,
1952.The learned Judge came to the following conclusions: “In fact, a folk story prevalent for
the last about 50 years has been mingled by the author with mythological taint to impress upon
the audience to feel that the theme is shown to them is a part and parcel of mythology. The result,
therefore, is that this appeal of the plaintiffs is dismissed and the impugned order of the learned
trial Judge is confirmed.There shall be no order as to the costs of this appeal.

12
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

The research was carried out with collecting information about ‘’supply and its determinants’’
through the following websites.

LexCliq – The Professionals Network

The EduLaw Portal: Home

http://blog.ipleaders.in

Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

And other sources such as advanced Law of Torts theory by RK Bangia.

13