Vi et armis

0
117
Vi et armis

Literal Meaning

With the force and arms.

Explanation & Origin

Vi et armis was a kind of lawsuit at common law called a tort. The cause of action alleged a trespass upon person or property vi et armis, Latin for “by force and arms.” The plaintiff would allege in a pleading that the act committing the offense was “immediately injurious to another’s property, and therefore necessarily accompanied by some degree of force; and by special action on the case, where the act is in itself indifferent and the injury only consequential, and therefore arising without any breach of the peace.” Thus it was “immaterial whether the injury was committed willfully or not.”

vi et armis was a kind of lawsuit at common law called a tort. The cause of action alleged a trespass upon person or property vi et armis, Latin for “by force and arms.” The plaintiff would allege in a pleading that the act committing the offense was “immediately injurious to another’s property, and therefore necessarily accompanied by some degree of force; and by special action on the case, where the act is in itself indifferent and the injury only consequential, and therefore arising without any breach of the peace.”Thus it was “immaterial whether the injury was committed willfully or not.”

Illustration

A negligently discharged a firearm in a public place and caused the loss of the B’s leg. A , was held to be liable for medical bills as well as lost earnings as a result of the disability. Thus, proof that the act or omission was unintended was no defense to an action of trespass vi et armis and the liable party would pay for all the consequent damages.

Case Reference

Dalbir Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab [1962 AIR 1106]

In this case nor do we think that the court’s attention been drawn to Ediga Annamma’s case. The two recent decisions of this Court could not have been within the ken of the Court because they were delivered later. Be that as it may, one has only to read the ratio in these three cases side by side with facts of the present case to hold that death Ir penalty is unmerited. Here, the earlier provocation came from the deceased’s side by beating up Appellant No. 3. The parties, including the prosecution group, were tipsy. There had been antecedent irrigation irrigation between them. There was no prepalanned, well laid attack, hell-bent on liquidating the enemy. A quarrel over turn af water; a pacification pro tempore; an afternoon exuberance with jocose and bellicose potions, beating up one appellant leading to a reprisal vi et armis.

Shankarlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others [W.P. No. 8849 of 2012]

In this case it was held that accordingly, even a rightful owner, such, for instance, as a landlord who is entitled to possession in a case where his tenant is wrongfully holding over, can only take possession peaceably. If his possession is opposed however, wrongfully, then the landlord has no right to break down the doors, to assault the inmates and to turn them vi et armis out of the building. He must go to the Civil Court and get the necessary warrants of ejectment orders to enable, if necessary, the proper authorities to effect a forcible entry or a forcible ejectment according to law.

Joseph Shine vs Union Of India [WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 194 OF 2017]

In this case it was said that the assault vi et armis is a fiction of law, assumed at first, in early times, to give jurisdiction of the cause of action as a trespass, to the courts, which then proceeded to permit the recovery of damages by the husband for his wounded feelings and honour, the defilement of the marriage bed, and for the doubt thrown upon the legitimacy of children.

Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania

Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje