Legal Conceptsof Ownership In Jurisprudence x5x4l

Legal Concepts Legal Rights and Duties Legal rights are, clearly, rights which exist under the rules of legal systems or by virtue of decisions of suitably authoritative bodies within them[1]. According to positivists, legal rights are essentially those interests which have been legally recognized and protected. John Austin made a distinction between legal rights and other types of rights such as Natural rights or Moral rights. By legal rights, he meant rights which are creatures of law, strictly or simply so called. He said that other kind of rights are not armed with legal sanction and cannot be enforced judicially. On the other hand, Salmond said that a legal right is an interest recognized and protected by rule of law and violation of such an interest would be a legal wrong. Salmond further said that: 1. A legal duty is an act that obliges to do something and act, the opposite of which would be a legal wrong. 2. Whenever law ascribes duty to a person, a corresponding right also exists with the person on whom the duty is imposed. 3. There are two kinds of duties: Moral Duty and Legal Duty. 4. Rights are said to be the benefits secured for persons by rules regulating relationships. Salmond also believed that no right can exist without a corresponding duty. Every right or duty involves a bond of legal obligation by which two or more persons are bound together. Thus, there can be no duty unless there is someone to whom it is due; there can be no right unless is someone from whom it is claimed; and there can be no wrong unless there is someone who is wronged, that is to say, someone whose right has been violated. This is also called as vinculum juris which means “a bond of the law”. It is a tie that legally binds one person to another[2]. On the other hand, Austin said that Duties can be of two types: a. Relative Duty – There is a corresponding right existing in such duties. b. Absolute Duty – There is no corresponding right existing. Austin conceives this distinction to be the essence of a right that it should be vested in some determinate person and be enforceable by some form of legal process instituted by him. Austin thus starts from the assumption that a right cannot vest in an indeterminate, or

a vague entity like the society or the people. The second assumption with which Austin starts is that sovereign creates rights and can impose or change these rights at its will. Consequently, the sovereign cannot be the holder of such rights. According to Salmond, there are five important characteristics of a Legal Right[3]: 1. It is vested in a person who may be distinguished as the owner of the right, the subject of it, the person entitled, or the person of inherence. 2. It avails against a person, upon whom lies the correlative duty. He may be distinguished as the person bound, or as the subject of duty, or as the person of incidence. 3. It obliges the person bound to an act or omission in favour of the person entitled. This may be termed the content of the right. 4. The act or omission relates to something (in the widest sense of that word), which may be termed the object or subject matter of the right. 5. Every legal right has a title, that is to say, certain facts or events by reason of which the right has become vested in its owner. Some jurists hold that a right may not necessarily have a correlative duty. They say that legal rights are legal concepts and these legal concepts have their correlatives which may not necessarily be a duty. Roscoe Pound also gave an analysis of such legal conceptions. He believed that legal rights are essentially interests recognized and istered by law and belong to the ‘science of law’ instead of ‘law’. He proposed that such Rights are conceptions by which interests are given form in order to secure a legal order. Hohfeld’s System of Fundamental Legal Concepts or Jural Relations

Jural Opposites

Jural Correlatives

1

2

3

4

Right – No Right Right – Duty

Privilege – Duty

Power Immunity – – Disability Liability

Privilege – No Right

Power Immunity – – Liability Disability

Jural Correlatives represent the presence of in another. Thus, right is the presence of duty in another and liability is the presence of power in another. Jural Opposites represent the absence of in oneself. Thus, no right is the absence of right in oneself and disability is the absence of power in oneself. Conclusion derived from Hohfeld’s System a. As a person’s right is an expression of a wish that the other person against whom the right or claim is expressed has a duty to obey his right or claim. b. A person’s freedom is an expression of a right that he may do something against other person to change his legal position. c. A person’s power is an expression of a right that he can alter other person’s legal position. d. A person’s disability is an expression of a wish that another person must not alter the person’s legal position.

Salmond on Rights and Duties Salmond said that a perfect right is one which corresponds to a perfect duty and a perfect duty is one which is not merely recognized by law but also enforced by law. In a fully developed legal system, there are rights and duties which though recognized by law are not perfect in nature. The rights and duties are important but no action is taken for enforcing these rights and duties. The rights form a good ground for defence but duties do not form a good ground for action. However, in some cases, an imperfect right is sufficient to enforce equity. Salmond gave following classifications of rights. 1. Positive and Negative Rights 2. Real and Personal Rights 3. Right in rem and right in personam 4. Proprietary and Personal Rights 5. Inheritable and Uninheritable Rights Salmond’s Classification of Positive and Negative Rights

Positive Rights 1

Negative Rights

A positive right corresponds to a Negative rights have negative duties corresponding duty and entitles its corresponding to them and owners to have something done for him enjoyment is complete unless

2 3 4

5

without the performance of which his interference takes place. Therefore, enjoyment of the right is imperfect. majority of negative rights are against the entire world. In the case of positive rights, the Whereas, in case of negative rights, person subject to the duty is bound to others are restrained to do do something. something. The satisfaction of a positive right Whereas in case of a negative right, results in the betterment of the position the position of the owner is of the owner. maintained as it is. In case of positive rights, the relation Whereas in case of negative rights, between subject and object is mediate the relation is immediate, there is no and object is attained with the help of necessity of outside help. All that is others. required is that others should refrain from interfering case of negative rights. In case of positive rights, a duty is In case of negative rights, the duty is imposed on one or few individuals. imposed on a large number of persons.

Salmond’s Classification of Real and Personal Rights

1 2 3

4

Real Rights

Personal Rights

A real right corresponds to a duty imposed upon persons in general. A real right is available against the whole world. All real rights are negative rights. Therefore, a real right is nothing more than a right to be left alone by others. It is merely a right to their ive non-interference. In real right, the relation is to a thing. Real rights are derived from some special relation to the object.

A personal right corresponds to a duty imposed upon determinate individuals. A personal right is available only against a particular person. Most personal rights are positive rights although in a few exceptional cases they are negative.

Real rights are right in rem.

In personal right, it is the relation to other persons who owe the duties which is important. Personal rights are derived from special relation to the individual or individuals under the duty. Personal rights are right in personam.

Salmond’s Classification of Right in rem and Right in personam

1

2

Right in rem It is derived from the Roman term ‘actio in rem’. An action in rem was an action for the recovery of dominium.

The right protected by an action in rem came to be called jus in rem.

Right in personam It is derived from the Roman term ‘action in personam’. An action in personam was one for the enforcement of obligato i.e. obligation. A right protected by action in personam came to be called as jus in personam.

3 4

Jus in rem means a right against or in respect of a thing. A right in rem is available against the whole world.

Jus in personam means a right against or in respect of a person. A right in personam is available against a particular individual only.

Salmond’s Classification of Proprietary and Personal Rights

1

2 3

4 5 6

Proprietary Rights Proprietary rights means a person’s right in relation to his own property. Proprietary rights have some economic or monetary value. Proprietary rights are valuable. Proprietary rights are not residual in character.

Personal Rights Personal rights are rights arising out of any contractual obligation or rights that relate to status.

Personal rights are not valuable. Personal rights are the residuary rights which remain after proprietary rights have been subtracted. Proprietary rights are transferable. Personal rights are not transferable. Proprietary rights are the elements of Personal rights are merely elements wealth for man. of his well-being. Proprietary rights possess not merely Personal rights possess merely judicial but also economic importance. judicial importance.

Salmond’s Classification of Inheritable and Uninheritable Rights Inheritable Rights A right is inheritable if it survives the owner.

Uninheritable Rights A right is uninheritable if it dies with the owner.

Ownership Ownership Salmond on Ownership Ownership denotes the relationship between a person and an object forming the subject-matter of his ownership. It consists in a complex of rights, all of which are rights in rem, being good against the entire world and not merely against specific persons[4]. Incidence of Ownership 1. The owner has the right to possess things that he owns. 2. The owner normally has a right to use or enjoy the thing owned, the right to manage it, the right to decide how it shall be used and the right of income from it. However, Right to possess is not a right strictu sensu because such rights are in fact liberties as the owner has no duty towards others and he can use it in any way he likes and nobody can interfere with the enjoyment of his ownership.

3. The owner has the right to consume, destroy or alienate the things. The right to consume and destroy are again straight forward liberties. The right to alienate i.e. the right to transfer the existing rights involves the existence of power. 4. Ownership has the characteristic of being ‘indeterminate in duration’ and Ownership has a residuary character. Salmond contrasted the rights of the owner with the lesser rights of the possessor and encumbrancer by stating that “the owner's rights are indeterminate and residuary in a way in which these other rights are not”. Austin’s Concept of Ownership Ownership or Property may be described accurately enough, in the following manner: ‘the right to use or deal with some given subject, in a manner, or to an extent, which, though is not unlimited, is indefinite’. Now in this description it is necessarily implied, that the law will protect or relieve the owner against every disturbance of his right on the part of any other person. Changing the expression, all other persons are bound to forbear from acts which would prevent or hinder the enjoyment or exercise of the right. Austin further said that “Ownership or Property, is, therefore, a species of Jus in rem. For ownership is a right residing in a person, over or to a person or thing, and availing against other persons universally or generally. It is a right implying and exclusively resting upon obligations which are at once universal and negative”. Dias on Ownership After referring to the views of Salmond and other Jurists, Dias came to the conclusion that a person is owner of a thing when his interest will outlast the interests of other persons in the same thing. This is substantially the conclusion reached by many modern writers, who have variously described ownership as the ‘residuary’, the ‘ultimate’, or ‘the most enduring interest’. According to Dias, an owner may be divested of his claims, etc., to such an extent that he may be left with no immediate practical benefit. He remains owner nonetheless. This is because his interest in the thing, which is ownership, will outlast that of other persons, or if he is not presently exercising any of his claims, etc., these will revive as soon as those vested in other persons have come to an end. In the case of land and chattels, if the owner is not in possession, ownership amounts to a better right to obtain the possession than that of the defendant. It is 'better' in that it lasts longer. It is apparent that the above view of Dias substantially agrees with that of Salmond. According to Dias it is the outlasting interest and according to Salmond,

ownership has the characteristic of being indeterminate in duration and residuary in nature[5].

Types of Ownership Corporeal Ownership

Incorporeal Ownership

1. Corporeal Ownership signifies ownership in a physical object. 2. Corporeal things are things which can be perceived by senses.

1. Incorporeal Ownership is a right or an interest. 2. Incorporeal things cannot be perceived by senses and are in tangible.

Sole Ownership

Co-Ownership

When an individual ownership

owns,

it

is sole When there is more than one person who owns the property

Trust Ownership

Beneficial Ownership

1. There is no co-ownership. 2. The person on whom the responsibility lies for the benefit of the others is called the Trustee. 3. The trustee has no right to the beneficial enjoyment of the property. 4. Ownership is limited. A trustee is merely an agent upon whom the law has conferred the duty of istration of property. 5. Trusteeship may change hands.

1. There can be co-ownership. 2. The person for whom the trust is created is called the Beneficiary.

Legal Ownership

Equitable Ownership

3. The Beneficiary has the full rights to enjoy the property. 4. Ownership is complete.

5. Beneficial Owners remain the same.

Legal ownership is that ownership which Equitable ownership comes from has its basis in common law. equity divergence of common law. Thus, distinction between legal and equitable ownership is very thin.

Vested Ownership

Contingent Ownership

1. Ownership is vested when the title is 1. Ownership is contingent when it is perfect. capable of being perfect after fulfilment of certain condition. 2. Vested ownership is absolute. 2. Contingent ownership becomes vested when the conditions are fulfilled.

Absolute Ownership

Limited Ownership

Ownership is absolute when possession, Limited Ownership is subjected to the enjoyment, disposal are complete and limitations of use, disposal or duration. vested without restrictions save as restriction imposed by law.

Ownership As A Social Concept

INTRODUCTION The concept of ownership is one of the fundamental juristic concepts common to all systems of law. This concept has been discussed by most of the writers before that of possession. However, it is pointed out that it is not the right method. Historically, speaking the idea of possession came first in the minds of people and it was later on that the idea of ownership came into existence. The idea of ownership followed the idea of possession. DEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEA OF OWNERSHIP The idea of ownership developed by slow degrees with the growth of civilization. So long as the people were wandering from place to place and had no settled place of residence, they had no sense of ownership. The idea began to grow when they started planting trees, cultivating lands and building their homes. The transition from a pastoral to an agricultural economy helped the development of the idea of ownership. People began to think in of mine and thine. To begin with, no distinction was made between ownership and possession. However with the advancement of civilization, the distinction became clearer and clearer. This distinction was made very clearly in Roman law. Two distinct were used to point out the distinction and these were Dominium and possession. Dominium denoted the absolute right to a thing. Possessio implied only physical control over a thing. The English notion of ownership is similar to the conception of dominium in Roman law. According to Holdsworth, the English law reached the concept of ownership as an absolute right through developments in the law of possession.[i] OWNERSHIP UNDER ANCIENT INDIAN LAW The right to ownership was also recognized under the ancient Indian law. The great commentators, notably, narada, Yajnavalkya ,vyas etc. emphasized the right of ownership of property was to be used for noble cause and good motives. The ancient hindu law ordained men to behave in a particular manner in relation to person or property of another. They were warned that misuse of the right of ownership would entail them moral and public indignation and they would be liable for punishment. The ancient laws of prescription, bailment, sale, etc. were based on distinction between ownership and possession. The ancient hindu jurists mentioned seven modes of acquisition of ownership of property, namely, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Inheritance Gain Purchase Conquest Investment of wealth Employment Acceptance of gifts

According to manu, only property of the king or state could be acquired by conquest but the king had no right to interfere or acquire the private property of the subjects of the conquered territory. As regards the property of no-one’s land (i.e. res nullius) Manu says that it belonged to him who first reclaimed it under cultivation. Where a thing had no previous owner such as bird or a fish, the rule of res nullius was to apply and the one who took it first was its owner. In case of some treasure was discovered, the person who found it took the whole of it if it was found on his land, and if it was found on some other’s land, he could acquire only half of it.[ii] DEFINITION OF OWNERSHIP Ownership, in its most comprehensive signification, denotes the relation between a person and any right that is vested in him. That which a man owns is in all cases a right. When, as is often the case, we speak of the ownership of a material object, this is merely a convenient figure of speech. To own a piece of land means in truth to own a particular kind of right in the land, namely, the fee simple of it. Ownership, in this generic sense, extends to all classes of rights, whether proprietary or personal, in rem or in personam, in re propria or in re aliena. I may own a debt, or a mortgage, or a share in a company, or money in the public fund’s, or a copyright, or a lease, or a right of way, or the fee simple of land. Every right is owned; and nothing can be owned except a right. Every man is the owner of the rights which are his. ACCORDING TO KEETON,“The right of ownership is a conception clearly easy to understand but difficult to define with exactitude. There are two main theories with regard to the idea of ownership. The great exponents of the two views are Austin and Salmond. According to one view, ownership is a relation which subsists between a person and a thing which is the object of ownership. According to the second to second view, ownership is a relation between a person and a right that is vested in him.”[iii]

HOLLAND’S DEFINITION: Holland defines ownership as ‘a plenary control over an object’. According to Holland, an owner has three rights on the object owned. They are (i) Possession (ii) Enjoyment (iii) Disposition. He says that the right of possession is ‘inherent of ownership’. However, it may be separated as in case of mortgage or letting out. According to him, the right of enjoyment means the “right of and of acquiring the fruits, or in increase of the thing – The right is limited only by the rights of the state or of other individuals.’’ The power of disposition means not only the power of alienation but it includes the power of alteration and destruction of the property.[iv] DUGUIT’S DEFINITION: According to Duguit ownership is a relation between a person and a thing. On of this relation the person has the power of disposal, use, and employment of the thing according to a regle de droit.[v]

AUSTIN DEFINITION: A widely accepted definition is that of Austin, who defined ownership as a right indefinite in point of , unrestricted in point of disposition , and unlimited in point of duration over a determinate thing.

Indefinite in point of It is practically impossible to enumerate the wide variety of ways in which the things owned may used by the owner. However, the Austin describes ownership as aindefinite in point of , it may not be taken to mean that the owner has an absolute right to use his property in whatever way he likes. All legal system impose condition on the of property .It is well accepted that every owner must use the object of ownership so as not to injure the rights of other persons. For instance, the owner cannot use his property in such a way as to cause nuisance to his neighbours. Similarly, an owner cannot prevent the entry of officers of the state into his property, when such entry is authorized by law as in case an officer of justice entering the premises of anyone in pursuance of a warrant issued by a court. Ownership is also subject to encumbrance in favour of others , in which case the power of enjoyed by the owner is curtailed by the rights of encumbrances. Unrestricted in point of disposition This denotes the absolute rights of alienation enjoyed by an owner as a necessary incidence of ownership. However, here again limitations exist. The law governing transfer of property may seriously interfere with the owner’s power of disposition. For instance, a transfer of property made with an intent to defeat or delay creditors is not permissible under the law. This rights of encumbrances also constitute a limitation on the power of disposition. Unlimited in point of duration When we describe ownership as unlimited in the point of duration, it means that a right is capable of existing so long as a thing owned exists. The right is not extinguished even on the death of the owner, because ownership devolves upon his heirs who are the persons of appointed by law to succeed the property remaining undisposed at time of his death. This quality of ownership also cannot be taken as absolute. There are situations, which limit the duration of ownership. For instance, a testator may settle his property on his widow with a condition that on her remarriage the property shall devolve upon his children. Here the widow remains the vested owner of the property until her remarriage, but his ownership is limited in point of duration. The rule against perpetuity is another limitation upon the unlimited duration and power or disposition of the owner.

Finally, it is to be stated that although be speak a ownership as a right, it would be preferable to speak of it as a collection of right, liberties,powers and immunities, following Hohfeld’s analysis. We must also recognised that some of these rights, liberties, powers and immunities are frequently found to decide either for a limited period, or perpetually in persons other than a owner. SALMOND DEFINITION: According to the Salmond ownership vests in the a complex of rights which he exercises to the exclusive of all others. For salmond what constitute ownership- a bundle of rights which is here in an individual salmond’s definition thus point out two attributes of ownership1. Ownership is a relation between a person and right that is vested in him 2. Ownership is incorporeal body or form.[vi] CHARACTERISTICS OF OWNERSHIP There are certain characteristics as such: 1. It is absolute or restricted. An owner of a property may be its absolute owner and nobody else may have any interest in the same. It is also possible that there may be certain restrictions on the right of ownership and those restrictions may be imposed by law or by volunatary agreement. An owner may lease out his property. He may mortgage the same. Thus, he comes to have a limited ownership. A compulsory restriction may be imposed on ownership if another person comes to have an easement on a particular property. 2. It is also possible that certain restrictions may be imposed on the owners of property in times of national emergency. The house of any owner may be requisitioned and any compensation may be fixed by the prescribed authority. The Government may appoint some authority to control the rents charged by the owners of property. 3. The Government may demand certain taxes from the owners of property. If those taxes are not paid, the Government may confiscate their property of that portion of property which is necessary to realisethe money due to the Government. 4. The ownership of a person does not diminish with his death. He is entitled to leave his property to his property to his successors. The owner can distribute the property even in his own lifetime. 5. Certain disabilities have been imposed on infants and lunatics with regard to the disposal of property. Obviously, they are not competent to enter into valid contracts. They are not expected to understand and appreciate all the implications of their actions.[vii] MODES OF ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP

Broadly speaking there are two modes of acquiring ownership, namely, (1) Original, and (2) Derivative. 1. Original Acquisition of ownership takes place when ownership is acquired by some personal act on the part of the acquirer. It may by three ways:   





Absolute – When a thing is acquired res nullius, i.e. , which has no previous owner. – This has been called Parigrah by Manu who stated that the first striker of an arrow to a prey whether a bird or wild animal, becomes its owner. – Original acquisition of ownership may also be by specification which means a person by working up on material belonging to another makes a new thing. For example, if a sculptor makes a statue from the clay belonging to the another, he becomes the original owner of that statue. Extinctive Acquisition of ownership , that is when a person by some act on his part extinguishes the ownership of the previous owner and acquires its ownership himself, it is called extinctive acquisition. For example, acquisition of ownership by prescription or adverse possession for a prescribed period which is 12 years in India.

Accessio – This is called accessory acquisition that is, when the ownership of property is acquired by way of accession to some existing property. Examples are produce of lands or animals or fruits of trees. Manu has termed this mode of acquisition as Prayog which means acquiring by accession.

1. Derivative acquisition – When ownership is derived from a previous owner, it is called derivative acquisition of ownership. It takes place when ownership is acquired by inheritance or gift or purchase, etc. In the Indian context, the law of succession , transfer of property, sales of goods, etc., regulate acquisition of ownership of the property by derivative mode.[viii] DISTINCTION BETWEEN CUSTODY, DETENTION, POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP Custody is a relation of a person to an object in which he has no full control over the thing, in the other words, he has no required animus to exclude others. For example, a customer examining a piece of cloth in a shop before the shopkeeper who has custody of that cloth. Detention is a relation where person has in fact possession over a thing but law due to certain reasons does not recognize it as possession. For example, a servant has the detention over things of his master with him. Possession is a relation of a person to an object which law recognises as possession. Possession is the external relisation of ownership; it is a valuable piece of evidence to

show the existence of ownership. Possession does not give the right to destroy, waste or even to alienate the property except by way of a sub- lease. Ownership is a relation of a person to an object which is exclusive or absolute and ultimate. The person who stands in this relation is called the ‘owner’ and he has a right of complete control and enjoyment of the object. Thus, a right of ownership is a right of dominium over the property concerned, so as to include the available rights attached to ‘ownership’- the right to possess the property in a de jure capacity, the right to use the property, as also the right to alienate or even to destroy the property though all those rights may not be present at the same time. SIGNIFICANCE OF OWNERSHIP IN MODERN SOCIAL CONTEXT Ownership is a socially significant concept because it is an index of wealth,and social position. Ownership of land was means of controlling government. In a feudal system based on land ownership, the feudal lords wielded tremendous influence,and even the qualification to vote was based on ownership of land. The social aspect of ownership also highlights the important principle that on owner shall enjoy his interest in a manner compatible with the interest of others. As Lord Evershed said; ‘ Property like other interests has a social obligation to perform’. The extent of this social obligation reflects the social policy of the legal system.[ix] It is important to that ownership is not merely a bundle of rights, liberties and powers. It is also carries with it corresponding burdens in the nature of duties,liabilities and disabilities which prescribe and regulates how an owner should utilise his property for the benefit of other individuals or society. Property owned by person is liable to execution for the debts incurred by him. The liability to pay property tax,wealth tax,etc, is also imposed in the social interest. When control legislation imposes restriction on the way in which one may use his property. The typical individualist approach to ownership is reflected in the definition of Austin,which we have analysed earlier. However,gradually the emphasis began to shift from the individual to society-from ownership as a fundamental right of property to the wants of people and one’s duty towards others. It came to be recognised that limitation are integral to the concept of property,and not exception to an otherwise unlimited right. The Marxist theory of ownership draws attention to the evil role it has played. It begins with individual working with its own tools and raw materials. Later,the profit accumulated through trading manufactured products elevates him to position to provide the tools and raw materials, and get other people to provide the labour.The manufactured products, however remain in his ownership,not in that of the labourer, and he continues to trade it as his own property. It is the concept of ownership that enables the exploitation of workers. Ownership of the means of production-tools and raw materials-became a source of power over persons for private profit.

This promoted inequality, because using the power of dismissal and threat of unemployment and consequent starvation,the employer was able to dictate unfair of service. The owners of the means of production became industrial commanders wielding enormous powers that strike at the fundamentals of society. Karl Renner,following the Marxist analysis,expressed the view that law should take of the increasingly public character of ownership of property by investing it with the characteristics of public law. Two concepts of ownership a public and a private,have to be recognised. Ownership of the means of production should be public,that is nationalised,and only ownership of consumer goods should be opened to private individuals. The distinction lies not in the nature of ownership,but in the things capable of being owned. Dr. Friedmann writes that the concept of ownership has exerted considerable influence as a source of social power in various stages of the development of society. Professor Renner has traced the gradual evolution of ownership in its social perspective. He pointed out that in early stages of development of society the owners of industries had to themselves collect tools, raw materials and labour resources to run the industry and they earned huge profits by the sale of their products. When they amassed sufficient wealth, they could afford to hire labour and run the industry by providing tools and raw material to them. The industrialist was still the sole owner of the goods so produced and had complete ownership of the profits earned by the industry. Thus the ownership of means of production become the source and symbol of power and social status which the industrialists enjoyed on the strength of the labour working under them. This eventually led to the development of management – labour relationship in the field of industries. The power of the employers to sack and change the service conditions of workers arbitrarily exhibited their influence in the society as a dominant class. However, in course of time, the labour movement raised voice against the exploitative tendencies of indutrialists and capitalists as a result of which public ownership gained primacy over private ownership. The policy of nationalization of industries adopted by progressive socialist countries is directed towards the fulfillment of this objective.[x] Dr. Friedmann attributes three main reasons for the declining influence of private ownership in modern social order. Firstly, the gap between employer and labour class is gradually narrowing down due to trade union movement, nationalization of industries and national insurance schemes and now the employers can exploit the workers by misusing their power. As a result of this the bargaining power of both the entrepreneurs and the workers is more or less equal. Secondly,The profiteering by industrialists has been considerably regulated through legislative measures and effective tax laws.

The industrialists are now required to contribute a considerable part of their income and profit to the public fund of the state. This has helped in equitable distribution of wealth. Thirdly, the encouragement provided to the corporate sector in recent decades has helped in separating the power element from ownership. During the capitalistic era, both ownership and power are centralized in the industrialists which was detrimental for the labour class. But today the real power vests in the management comprising experts in their respective fields and the owners are divested of this power. Thus power has been separated from the ownership. Furthur in order to ensure that the management does not misuse their power and authority, comprehensive company legislation and labour and industrial laws have been enacted by almost all countries.[xi] Dias and Hughes have observed that in order to appreciate the role of ownership in the present social order, its formal analysis shall not serve any useful purpose, instead there should be greater emphasis on its functional analysis.[xii] CONCLUSION Ownership and possession are two words, which we commonly use in our daily life without thinking about their legal incidents or consequences. However, even when we use these words in our ordinary conversation, we generally associate certain rights and obligations with these words .It is surprising that a child who has not learned these two words is capable of understanding the meaning of these words, and also the difference between the concepts of ownership and possession. For instance, if you give a toy as a birthday gift to a child, he/she immediately understands that the toy belongs to him/her. He/ she considers himself/herself as the owner of the toy,and does not permit other to touch it. If he / she permits another child to play with the toy, he/ she expects that it will be returned to him/her after same time. In his/her mind there is a clear knowledge that he/she parting with the possession of the toy , but has no intention of giving up ownership . On the other hand, he/she may voluntarily give the toy as a gift to her dear friend. Now he/she has no expectation of getting it back, and knows that he/she has relinquished not only the possession of the toy, but also its ownership . Law converts these simple ideas to legal concepts by defining their meaning with precision and refinement. Ownership as a legal concepts denotes a legal relation between a person who is called the owner of the right , and a things over which he can exercise certain rights. The right of ownership is the most complete and supreme right that can be exercised over anything.

It consist four rights, namely: 1.Using the things;2.excluding others from using it; 3.disposing of things; and4.destroying it. Ownership is a socially significant concept because it is an index of wealth, and social position. Ownership of land was means of controlling government. In a feudal system based on land ownership, the feudal lords wielded tremendous influence, and even the qualification to vote was based on ownership of land. The social aspect of ownership also highlights the important principle that on owner shall enjoy his interest in a manner compatible with the interest of others. As Lord Evershed said; ‘Property like other interests has a social obligation to perform’. The extent of this social obligation reflects the social policy of the legal system. It is important to that ownership is not merely a bundle of rights, liberties and powers. It is also carries with it corresponding burdens in the nature of duties, liabilities and disabilities which prescribe and regulates how an owner should utilise his property for the benefit of other individuals or society. Property owned by person is liable to execution for the debts incurred by him. The liability to pay property tax, wealth tax, etc, is also imposed in the social interest. When control legislation imposes restriction on the way in which one may use his property. The typical individualist approach to ownership is reflected in the definition of Austin, which we have analysed earlier. However, gradually the emphasis began to shift from the individual to society-from ownership as a fundamental right of property to the wants of people and one’s duty towards others. It came to be recognised that limitation are integral to the concept of property, and not exception to an otherwise unlimited right.

A. Concept and Function of Ownership 1. Introduction: The idea and concept of ownership is developed by slow degrees with the growth of civilization. In primitive societies the only concept known to human mind was that of possession. It was much later that the concept of ownership adopted. So long as the people were wandering from place to place and had no settled place of residence, they had no sense of ownership. The idea began to grow when they started planting trees, cultivating lands and building their homes. The transition from a pastoral to an agricultural economy helped the development of the idea and concept of the ownership. Thus, ownership denotes the relation between a person and an objective forming the subject matter of his/her ownership. The normal case of ownership can be expected to exhibit the incidents as follows: First, the owner will have a right to possess the thing which s/he owns. Secondly, the owner normally has the right to use and enjoy the thing owned. Thirdly, the owner has the right to consume, destroy or alienate the thing.

2.

a) b) c) d) e)

Fourthly, ownership has the characteristics of being indeterminate in duration. Fifthly, ownership has a residuary character. Meaning and definition of ownership: The literal meaning of the term ‘own’ is to have or hold a thing. The one who holds a thing as his own is said to be the owner and has right of ownership ever it. Thus in the non-legal sense ownership may be defined as the right of exclusive control over and disposal of a thing at will. In the legal sense the term ownership carries the meaning of right over a thing to the exclusion of all other persons. This implies non-interference by others in the exercise of this right and must be distinguished from mere holding of a thing in one’s possession. Normally ownership implies, the right to possess, the right to use, the right to manage, the right to capital and the right to income. The concept of the ownership is one of the fundamental juristic concept common to all system of law. Different writers have defined ownership in different ways. Austin defined ownership as ‘a right indefinite in point of , unrestricted in point of disposition and unlimited in point of duration.’ Austin’s definition thus implies thee attributes viz., a) indefinite , b) unrestricted disposition and c) unlimited duration. Holland‘s definition: Austin’s definition of ownership has been followed by Holland. He defines ownership as plenary control over an object. According to him an owner has thee rights on the subject owned:a) Possession b) Enjoyment c) Disposition According to Salmond, ‘Ownership in most comprehensive significance denotes the relation between a person and any right that is vested in him.’ That, which a man owns, according to him, is in all cases a right. Ownership in this wider sense extends to all classes of rights, whether proprietary or personal, in rem or in personam, in re-propria or in re-aliena. He adds that it applies not only to rights in the strict sense but also to liberties, powers and immunities. Thus, according to Salmond ownership vests in the owner a complex of rights which s/he exercises to the exclusion of all others. For Salmond what constitutes ownership a bundle of rights which in here in an individual. Salmond’s definition thus points out two attributes of ownership:a) Ownership is a relation between a person and rights that is vested in him; b) Ownership is incorporeal (immaterial, having no material body or form).

For Salmon a man may own a copyright or a right of way in the same way as s/he owns a piece of land because in all the cases s/he owns only a right and not a thing. Hohfield expresses a similar view (like that of Salmond) when he says ownership is not a right but a bundle of rights, privileges, powers etc. Duguit has defined, ‘Ownership is a relation between a person and a thing. On of this relation the person has the power of disposal, use and enjoyment of the thing.’ We may conclusion say thata) Ownership is a right which comprises of powers, claims, privileges, etc. b) Ownership is in respect of a thing which may be corporeal or incorporeal. c) The rights relating to or in connection with ownership are subject to state regulation i.e., can be limited or restricted by law. d) Owner is he who is entitled to the residue of rights with respect to an object left after the limitation resulting from the voluntary acts of the owner (mortgage, lease or hire) or those imposed by law are exhausted, e) Ownership does not imply or indicate absolute or unlimited rights either regarding use, disposal or duration. 3. Essentials of ownership: i. The first essential of ownership is that it is indefinite in point of . It is impossible to define or sum up exhaustively the wide variety of ways in which the thing owned may be used by the person entitled to its ownership. ii. Another essential of ownership is that it is unrestricted in point of disposition. An owner can effectively dispose of his property by a conveyance during his lifetime or by will after his death. iii. The owner has a right to possess the thing which s/he owns. iv. The owner has the right to exhaust the thing while using it, if the nature of the thing owned is such. v. Another essential of ownership is that it has a residuary character. An owner may part with several rights in respect of the thing owned by him/her. vi. Generally, the owner has the right to destroy or alienate the thing s/he owns. 4. Characteristics of ownership: i. Ownership is absolute or restricted. It may be limited to a lesser or greater extent, either voluntarily or under compulsion of law. ii. Right of ownership may also be restricted national emergency. iii. An owner has to pay taxes to the state and exercise of his right of ownership. iv. An owner must not exercise his right of ownership in such a way as to infringe the right of other owners. v. An owner has not the freedom to dispose of his property in any way he likes. S/he can not transfer the property to defraud his creditor. vi. Infants and lunatics are under a disability in the eye of law because they can neither understand the true nature of their acts nor the consequences. vii. Ownership does not generally terminate with the death of the owner. It es to legal heirs in case of intestacy. 5. The subject matter of ownership:

The prime subject matter of ownership consists of material objects such as land and chattels. But ownership is by no means limited to things of this category. A human being’s wealth may consist of such things as interests in the land of others, debts due to him, shares in companies, patents, designs, trademarks, copyrights and so on. Salmond indeed took the view that the true subject matter of ownership has to be a right in all cases. 6. Criticism: I. Austin’s view of ownership has been criticized on various grounds; a. It is pointed out that ownership is not a right but a bundle of rights. It is the aggregate or sum total of the rights of and enjoyment. b. Ownership is not merely a right but also a relationship between the right owned and the person owning it. c. The idea of the right of indefinite is also attacked. Many limitations can be put upon that . The owner must use his property in such a way as not to interfere with the rights of others. II. Salmond’s view of ownership has been criticized by many writers; a. According to Duguit, ownership is a relationship between a person and a thing over which he is permitted, on of this relationship, complete disposal, use and enjoyment. What is owned is a thing and not a right. b. According to Cook, there are many rights which a person may possess and to use the term ‘owner’ to express the relationship between a person and a right is to introduce necessary confusion. Ownership is the name given to the bundle of rights. c. According to Kocourek, ownership is a relationship of the owner and a right to a thing which can be economically enjoyed. The right of ownership is a matter of legal protection. 7. Methods of acquiring ownership: A thing is capable of being owned, the methods of acquiring ownership over it will vary from legal system to legal system. There are two modes of acquisition of ownership and those are original and derivative. Original acquisition can be absolute: res nullius and by occupation. Basically, one can acquire ownership in two ways: i. by operation of law or ii. by reason of some act or event. As to the first, a statute might provide that all A’s property should after a certain period of time vest in B. As to the second this may consist in the first taking or madding a thing, both being cases of original acquisition. Thirdly, the thing may fall into man’s ownership without any human act, as would be the case if a piece of land were to break off from an island in a river and attach itself to my land on the opposite bank. 8. Classification of ownership: Ownership may be of various kinds. Broadly, it may be classified under the following headsI. Vested and Contingent ownership

II. Sole and Co-ownership III. Corporeal and Incorporeal ownership IV. Legal and Equitable ownership V. Trust and Beneficial ownership VI. Absolute and Limited ownership I. Vested and Contingent ownership Ownership is either vested or contingent. It is vested when the owner’s title already perfect, it is contingent when his title is as yet imperfect, but is capable of becoming perfect on the fulfillment of some condition. In the former case the ownership is absolute; in the latter it is merely conditional. Once it is matured it automatically converts into vested type of ownership. II. Sole and Co-ownership Sole ownership indicates the singular control over the property. In this concept an individual only entertains all sorts of rights of ownership over his owned property. Co-ownership is a concept of plural or multiple owners holding right over the particular property. A single person cannot entertain the rights of ownership in group. III. Corporeal and Incorporeal ownership Ownership over any material object which can be movable or immovable but tangible objects is called corporeal ownership. Incorporeal Ownership means ownership over the immaterial things such as right over patent, design, trademark, copyright etc. IV. Legal and Equitable ownership The distinct between legal and equitable ownership is limited in English common law only. Legal ownership is a legally defined and protected property. Generally, ownership is understood as a legal ownership. In other words, legal ownership is that which has its origin in the rules of the common law. Equitable ownership is basically carried out from the Chancery courts of UK. Equity courts protect the rights of property. Equity law granted rights were the concept of equitable ownership. Equity law is a concept of natural law philosophy. It does have no practicability to rest of the world. V. Trust and Beneficial ownership Trust ownership is also known as duplicate or dual types of ownership. It is well defined right that one should use the right to favor other. This kind of ownerships looks like ceremonial having no powers. Beneficial ownership is relating to rights over the trust to use the authority in favor of the trust itself. This type of ownership is taken as a real ownership because it is powerful and using right to favor the trust is to benefit all trustees. Moreover is none other than a trustee. VI. Absolute and Limited ownership Absolute ownership is a concept of right having no any conditions. Particular property is totally under the control of owner. Limited ownership is a conditional approach of the rights over the property. It is basically based on contract law or dependency and various defined limitations towards the entertainment of right relating to ownership. 9. Function of Ownership: From the above mentioned definition, characteristic and classification etc.function of the ownership is itself clear. According to Dias, the function of the ownership is as follows:

The ownership has been stated that as right in itself, distinct from its component jurally relations, has always been usefully for identifying certain groups of interests and for distinguishing them from others. This is because ownership of these special groups was originally an index not merely to wealth, but to social position, and it was socially significant in other ways as well. Possession, as has been seen, is a judicial concept and an instrument of judicial policy. In the words of Lord Evershed ‘property like other interests has a social obligation to perform’. In English law the various forms of land holding designated a man’s social standing, where as chattels, being fungible, did not have this function. Ownership of land was also a means of controlling government in so far as the qualification to vote was based upon it. Dominium in Roman law connected sovereignty, which is essentially a social concept and something more than just ownership, things of ownership the earliest forms of roman property, were precisely the things that were important to a primitive agricultural community. B. Distinction between Possession and Ownership: According to Ihering, “Possession is the objective realization of ownership.” It is the external realization of ownership. It is a valuable piece of evidence to show the existence of ownership. It is in fact what ownership is in right. It is the de facto exercise of a claim while ownership is the de jure recognition of that claim. Possession is the de facto counterpart of ownership. It is the external form in which rightful claims normally manifest themselves. For example, a rented house is actually in possession of the tenant but the ownership of it is vested in the landlord. According to Salmond, “ownership in its widest sense implies “the relation between a person and any right that is vested in him. Possession is in fact what ownership is in right. Bringing out distinction between possession and ownership Salmond pointed out that a person is said to be the owner of a thing when his claim receives the recognition and protection from the law of the state, but possession may be exercised and realized even without such recognition or protection from the law. Thus ownership has the guarantee of law but possession has some measure of security and value from the facts, without any possibility of from land. According to Austin, ownership in its wider sense is a right “indefinite in point of , unrestricted in point of disposition and unlimited in point of duration”. The right of alienation of property is a necessary incident to the right of ownership, but there are many restrictions with regard to the alienation of property today. According to Pollock, “Ownership may be described as the entirety of the powers of use and disposal allowed by law. The owner of a thing is not necessarily the person who at a given time has the whole power of use and disposal; very often, there is no such person. We must look for the person having the residue of all such power when we have ed for every detached and limited portion of it, and s/he will be the owner even if the immediate power or control and are elsewhere”. Possession and ownership differ in their mode of acquisition. The transfer of possession is comparatively easier and less technical but the transfer of ownership in most cases involves a technical process of convincing. On the basis of above discussion, we can compare ownership and possession in this way in brief:

Ownership

Possession

i. Ownership is an absolute i. Possession is relative authority holding physical authority over the property. control over the property. ii. Ownership is perfectly legal ii. Possession is possessory right only. It shows real right. It shows legal situation. situation. iii. Ownership is a de jure concept. iii. Possession is a de facto concept. iv. Ownership right is wider iv. Possession is a right of consumption only. concept. v. Possession right is limited concept of right. v. Ownership holds unlimited and vi. Possession is comparatively easy and practically uncontrolled rights. no need to and such formalities. vi. Transfer of ownership is not vii. Possession faces the technical obstacles for easy and it needs to legal or transfer. formal procedures, prerequisites viii. Possession is a single concept giving no right of of registration. ownership. vii. Ownership has no technical ix. Possession may create ground for the ownership obstructions to transfer. as well. viii. Ownership is a union of x. Possession is the real and basis of priority for the ownership and possession. situation of equal rights. ix. Ownership only does not carry practical use in the absence of possession. x. Ownership does not get priority if there is an equal right over the same property. Relation between Possession and Ownership We have already adverted to the chief differences between possession and ownership. Speaking generally, ownership and possession have the same subject matter. Possession has been treated as an external evidence of ownership. A person in possession of a thing may be presumed to be the owner of it. The person in possession need not prove his ownership; instead, the burden of disproving ownership of the possessor is on the person who disputes his ownership. A long continuous and uninterrupted possession is an effective method of realization of ownership. According to Salmond, the subject matter of possession and ownership is more or less the same, a thing which may be owned, may also be possessed. Likewise, a thing which may be taken into possession may also be owned. Salmond held that whatever may be owned may be possessed, and whatever may be possessed may be owned. Salmond further pointed out that “the law of prescription determines the process by which through the influence of time, possession without title ripens into ownership and ownership without possession withers away and dies”. According to Sethna, the relationship between ownership and possession is same as that of body with soul. Just as existence of body is necessary for the realization of soul, likewise possession is necessary and useful for the expression of the ownership because it (possession) is external and formal.

Sir Henry Maine suggested that historically, the concept of possession is prior to that of ownership. In fact, right of possession has evolved out the right of ownership. Possession is the de facto exercise of a claim while ownership is the de jure recognition of it. Possession is the guarantee of fact whereas ownership is the guarantee of law. A claim to possession is maintained by one’s own self asserting will but a claim to ownership is legally protected by the will of the State. Ihringobserved that possession is the objective realization of ownership. Possession in fact, is what ownership is in right. The distinction between possession and ownership on the basis of fact and right is not tenable. Fact and right are not quite separate and independent ideas. One cannot exist without the other. Conclusion, The way of ownership, philosopher Salmond, had indicated the ownership cooperates with person and right. Austin quoted right to of indefinite nature, Holland concerned for power to the possession, enjoyment and ownership. Basically, ownership functions according to its definition and characteristics. In the functionally, it has social position and significant. It has the judicially as well as social control and policy. Ownership of land was also means of controlling government. By the way ownership is depends on according to the nation’s government. Although, philosopher defined its nature, definition, acquisition, kinds and function related with possession, owner, right and so on but it has naturally right with the nation about property, citizens and power. At last, we can say that ownership is strictly a legal concept and possession is non-legal and pre-legal concept, so they have basic different but closely co-related with each other. References: i. Dr. V.D. Mahajan (reprinted 2007), Jurisprudence and legal theory (5th edition), Estern book company Lucknow. ii. Dr. Bal Bahadur Mukhiya (2011), Comparative Jurisprudence, (1st edition)Mrs. Malati & Tamanna Mukhiya, Kathmandu. iii. Prof. Nomita Agrawal (2010), Jurisprudence (Legal Theory) (8th edition), Central Law Publications, India. iv. R.W.M. Dias (1994), Jurisprudence (5th edition), Aditya books Private limited, New Delhi. v. Salmond on Jurisprudence (2004), by P.J. Fitzgerland (12thedition), Universal Law Publishing co. pvt. ltd. vi. Dr.N.V. Paranjape (reprint 2010) Studies in Jurisprudence & Legal Theory, (5th edition), Central law Agency, Allahabad. Jurists have defined ownership in different ways. All of them accept the right of ownership as the complete or supreme right that can be exercised over anything. Thus, according to Hibbert ownership includes four kinds of rights within itself.    

Right to use a thing Right to exclude others from using the thing Disposing of the thing Right to destroy it.

Austin’s definition Austin while defining ownership has focused on the three main attributes of ownership, namely, indefinite , unrestricted disposition and unlimited duration.   

Indefinite Unrestricted Disposition Unlimited Duration The abolition of Zamindari system India , the abolition of privy purses, nationalization of Bank etc. are some example of the fact that the ownership can be cut short by the state for public purpose and its duration is not unlimited. Austin’s definition has been followed by Holland. He defines ownership as plenary control over an object. According to him an owner has three rights on the subject owned

  

Possession Enjoyment Disposition Planetary control over an object implies complete control unrestricted by any law or fact. Thus, the criticism levelled against Austin’s definition would apply to that given by Holland in so far as the implication of the term “plenary control” goes. Salmond’s Definition: According to the Salmond ownership vests in the complex of rights which he exercises to the exclusive of all others. For Salmond what constitute ownership is a bundle of rights which in here resides in an individual. Salmond’s definition thus point out two attributes of ownership:

 

Ownership is a relation between a person and right that is vested in him Ownership is incorporeal body or form

MODERN LAW AND OWNERSHIP Under modern law there are the following modes of acquiring ownership which may be broadly classed under two heads,viz,. Original mode Derivative mode The original mode is the result of some independence personal act of the acquire himself. The mode of acquisition may be three kinds  



Absolute when a ownership is acquired by over previously ownerless object Extinctive, which is where there is extinctive of previous ownership by an independence adverse act on the part of the acquiring. This is how a right of easement is acquiring after age of time prescribed by law. Accessory that is when requisition of ownership is the result of accession. For example, if three fruits, the produce belongs to the owner unless he has parted with to the same. When ownership is derived from the previous version of law then it is called derivate acquisition. That is derived mode takes place from the title of s prior owner. It is derived either by purchase, exchange, will, gift etc.Indian Transferee Acts of property rules for the transfer of immovable property, Sale of goods Acts for the transfer of property of the firm and the companies Act for the transfer of company property.

SUBJECT MATTER OF OWNERSHIP Normally ownership implies the following:

    

The right to manage The right to posses The right to manage The right to capital The right to the income

CHARACTERISTICS OF OWNERSHIP An analysis of the concept of ownership, it would show that it has the following characteristics: Ownership ma either be absolute or restricted, that is, it may be exclusive or limited. Ownership can be limited by agreements or by operation of law.The right of ownership can be restricted in time of emergency. An owner is not allowed to use his land or property in a manner that it is injurious to others. His right of ownership is not unrestricted.The owner has a right to posses the thing that he owns. It is immaterial whether he has actual possession of it or not. The most common example of this is that an owner leasing his house to a tenant. Law does not confer ownership on an unborn child or an insane person because they are incapable of conceiving the nature and consequences of their acts. Ownership is residuary in character. The right to ownership does not end with the death of the owner; instead it is transferred to his heirs. Restrictions may also be imposed by law on the owner’s right of disposal of the thing owned. Any alienation of property made with the intent to defeat or delay the claims of creditors can be set aside.

KINDS OF OWNERSHIP There are many kinds of ownership and some of them are corporeal and incorporeal ownership, sole ownership and co-ownership, legal and equitable ownership, vested and contingent ownership, trust and beneficial ownership, co- ownership and t ownership and absolute and limited ownership.

Corporeal and Incorporeal Ownership Corporeal ownership is the ownership of a material object and incorporeal ownership is the ownership of a right. Ownership of a house, a table or a machine is corporeal ownership. Ownership of a copyright, a patent or a trademark is incorporeal ownership. The distinction between corporeal and incorporeal ownership is connected with the distinction between corporeal and incorporeal things. Incorporeal ownership is described as ownership over tangible things. Corporeal things are those which can be perceived and felt by the senses and which are intangible. Incorporeal ownership includes ownership over intellectual objects and encumbrances.

Trust and Beneficial Ownership Trust ownership is an instance of duplicate ownership. Trust property is that which is owned by two persons at the same time. The relation between the two owners is such that one of them is under an obligation to use his ownership for the benefit of the other. The ownership is called beneficial ownership. The ownership of a trustee is nominal and not real, but in the eye of law the trustee represents his beneficiary. In a trust, the relationship between the two owners is such that one of them is under an obligation to use his ownership for the benefit of the other. The former is called the trustee and his ownership is trust ownership. The latter is called the beneficiary and his ownership is called beneficial ownership.

Legal and Equitable Ownership

Legal ownership is that which has its origin in the rules of common law and equitable ownership is that which proceeds from the rules of equity. In many cases, equity recognizes ownership where law does not recognize ownership owing to some legal defect. Legal rights may be enforced in rem but equitable rights are enforced in personam as equity acts in personam. One person may be the legal owner and another person the equitable owner of the same thing or right at the same time. The equitable ownership of a legal right is different from the ownership of an equitable right. The ownership of an equitable mortgage is different from the equitable ownership of a legal mortgage. There is no distinction between legal and equitable estates in India. Under the Indian Trusts Act, a trustee is the legal owner of the trust property and the beneficiary has no direct interest in the trust property itself. However, he has a right against the trustees to compel them to carry out the provisions of the trust.

Vested and Contingent Ownership Ownership is either vested or contingent. It is vested ownership when the title of the owner is already perfect. It is contingent ownership when the title of the owner is yet imperfect but is capable of becoming perfect on the fulfillment of some condition. In the case of vested ownership, ownership is absolute. In the case of contingent ownership it is conditional. For instance, a testator may leave property to his wife for her life and on her death to A, if he is then alive, but if A is dead to B. Here A and B are both owners of the property in question, but their ownership is merely contingent. It must, however, be stated that contingent ownership of a thing is something more than a simple chance or possibility of becoming an owner. It is more than a mere spes acquisitionis. A contingent ownership is based upon the mere possibility of future acquisition, but it is based upon the present existence of an inchoate or incomplete title.

Sole Ownership and Co-ownership Ordinarily, a right is owned by one person only at a time. However, duplicate ownership is as much possible as sole ownership. When the ownership is vested in a single person, it is called sole ownership; when it is vested in two or more persons at the same time, it is called co-ownership, of which co-ownership is a species. For example, the of a partnership firm are co-owners of the partnership property. Under the Indian law, a co-owner is entitled to three essential rights, namely   

Right to possession Right to enjoy the property Right to dispose

Co-ownership and t Ownership According to Salmond, “co-ownership may assume different forms. Its two chief kinds in English law are distinguished as ownership in common and t ownership. The most important difference between these relates to the effect of death of one of the co-owners. If the ownership is common, the right of a dead man descends to his successors like other inheritable rights, but on the death of one of two t owners, his ownership dies with him and the survivor becomes the sole owner by virtue of this right of survivorship.

Absolute and Limited Ownership

An absolute owner is the one in whom are vested all the rights over a thing to the exclusion of all. When all the rights of ownership, i.e. possession, enjoyment and disposal are vested in a person without any restriction, the ownership is absolute. But when there are restrictions as to , duration or disposal, the ownership will be called a limited ownership. For example, prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a woman had only a limited ownership over the estate because she held the property only for her life and after her death; the property ed on to the last heir or last holder of the property. Another example of limited ownership in English law is life tenancy when an estate is held only for life.