Unit IV — Rights, Possession, Ownership & Personality

“He who has possession has nine points of the law.” — common-law proverb the courts take seriously

Right and Duty

A legal right is an interest recognised and protected by law (Salmond); every right has five elements — holder, object, content, correlative duty-bearer, and title. Rights and duties are correlative: my right that you pay implies your duty to pay. Kinds that recur in the paper: perfect/imperfect; positive/negative; rights in rem [against the world — ownership, reputation] vs rights in personam [against a determinate person — contract]; proprietary/personal; legal/equitable; vested/contingent; principal/accessory.

Hohfeld’s Analysis — the Examiner’s Favourite Grid

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Hohfeld: 'right' hides<br/>four distinct relations"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Claim-right<br/>correlative: DUTY"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Liberty / privilege<br/>correlative: NO-RIGHT"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["Power<br/>correlative: LIABILITY"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> D["Immunity<br/>correlative: DISABILITY"]:::leaf

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Hohfeld’s point: lawyers say “right” for four different things. I have a claim that you keep off my land (you owe a duty); a liberty to walk on my own land (you have no right to stop me); a power to sell it (you are liable to a change of position); an immunity from having it taken without authority (the State is under a disability). Using the correct pair in an answer is an instant mark-winner.

Possession — “Nine Points of the Law”

Possession is the continuing exercise of a claim to the exclusive use of a thing. Its two classical elements: corpus possessionis [physical control] and animus possidendi [intention to exclude others] — Savigny’s pairing, with Ihering’s objective correction (possession is whatever the law protects as such, animus or not).

Kinds: possession in fact vs in law; mediate (through another — landlord via tenant) and immediate; constructive (keys to the warehouse); adverse (hostile possession that, run long enough, ripens into title by prescription).
Modes of acquisition: taking (with or without consent), delivery (actual or constructive), and operation of law.
Why law protects possession even against owners: peace (no self-help), evidence of ownership, and the maturing of titles. The rule the problem-question tests: even a true owner may not forcibly dispossess a person in settled possession; he must sue — possession is good against all the world except one with a better legal process, not a stronger arm.

Ownership

Ownership (Salmond) is “the relation between a person and any right that is vested in him” — in substance, the ultimate, residual right in a thing: the bundle of the rights to possess, use, manage, take income, alienate, and transmit, indeterminate in duration. Possession is the de facto exercise of these; ownership the de jure title. Kinds: sole and co-ownership; legal and equitable; trust and beneficial; vested and contingent; absolute and limited (the pre-1956 Hindu widow’s estate). Modes of acquisition: original (occupation, specification) and derivative (purchase, gift, inheritance).

Legal Personality

A person in law is any entity capable of rights and duties — wider than “human”: natural persons and legal persons (corporations, the idol — Pramatha Nath Mullick — the State, even the river in recent experiments), while slaves historically and animals today hold none. Corporate-personality theories: fiction (Savigny — the corporation is a fictitious person the State creates), concession (personality exists only by State grant), realist (Gierke — the group is a real organism), bracket/symbolist (Ihering — a shorthand for the members), and purpose theory. The doctrine’s bite: Salomon v. Salomon & Co. (1897) — the company is distinct from its members — tempered by lifting the veil for fraud and evasion.

✏️ Sample Solved Problem (IRAC Method)

Problem: A tenant in long, settled possession of a shop is forcibly thrown out by the landlord without any court order. The landlord pleads that he is the true owner. Advise the tenant.

I — Issue

Can a person in settled possession be evicted by the owner’s own force, and what protection does possession itself give against the true owner?

R — Rule

Possession is protected in its own right: even the true owner must recover possession through the legal process, never by force — the principle of Midnapur Zamindary Co. v. Naresh Narayan Roy (1924) and Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu (2004).
Section 6, Specific Relief Act, 1963 — a person dispossessed without consent and otherwise than by due course of law may recover possession by a summary suit within six months, and the defendant cannot plead his own title in that suit.

A — Analysis

The tenant’s possession was settled and peaceful; the landlord’s superior title gave him a right to sue, not a licence to raid. The decoy is the plea of ownership — Section 6 expressly shuts that door in the summary proceeding: the question is who was dispossessed by force, not who owns. The law deliberately ranks peace above title in this first round; the owner may still establish title in a regular suit afterwards.

C — Conclusion

The tenant succeeds. He should sue under Section 6 within six months; the court will restore his possession notwithstanding the landlord’s ownership, leaving the landlord to a separate title suit — force is never a substitute for due process.

📄 The full bundle (₹199) contains the complete Unit IV — possession and ownership in full depth, the personality theories with the unborn/dead/animal sections, PYQ boxes and blueprints — plus the Question Bank’s model answers to every Unit IV essay and problem asked since 2011. Get Notes + Question Bank — ₹199