Jurisprudence

1. HINDI VIDYA PRACHAR
SAMITI (HVPS) LAW COLLEGE
Name: RINA P. RAM
Class : SYLLB Sem: IV
Roll No. : 64
Sub: JURISPRUDENCE

2. EXPLAIN THE KINDS OF POSSESSION
INDEX
Sr. No. Topic Pg.
No.
1 Introduction 3
2 Definition and meaning 4
3 Kinds of possession 5-6
4 Case laws 7-8
5 conclusion 9

3. INTRODUCTION
Possession means physical control over an object or thing. Though in law it is difficult to define the concept of possession because there is no precise
definition of possession. It is factual as well as a legal concept. But, we can say that it is the physical custody, control or occupancy of any object with a
definite intention of ownership.
Jurists have defined possession based on their personal beliefs. It is the most fundamental interaction between man and things, according to Salmond.
However, Henry Maine defined it as “interaction with an object that includes the exclusion of other people from enjoying it.” A man is considered to own a
thing over which he has seeming control or over which he has apparent authority to exclude others, according to Federick Pollock.
In B. Gangadhar v. Ramalingam (1995) 5 SCC 238, the Indian Supreme Court elaborated on the notion of possession. The objective realization of
ownership is possession. It is both the de facto statement of a claim to a specific piece of property and the de facto counterpart of ownership. Possession of a
right, in contrast to the de jure connection of ownership, is the de facto relationship of ongoing exercise and enjoyment. The actual exercise of a claim to a
specific piece of property is known as possession. It is the most typical form in which claims are made. It is the outward form in which claims are most
commonly manifested.

4. DEFINATION AND MEANING
Possession is one of the most essential concepts in human life. It is legal as well as a factual concept, which makes it difficult to define.
The literal meaning of possession is to have physical control over something materialistic. It is impossible to define the concept so as to cover all
the legal scenarios and situations in which it may apply. Let us have a look at some of the definitions prescribed by notable jurists.
According to Salmond, “possession is the continuing exercise of a claim to the exclusive use of an object.”
Savigny defines Possession as, “intention coupled with physical power to exclude others from the use of a material object. According to Ihering,
“whenever a person looked like an owner in relation to a thing, he had possession of it unless possession was denied to him by rules of law
based on practical convenience.” Strictly speaking in the legal sense, mere physical control over a thing does not amount to possession. It must
be coupled with an intention to exercise such physical control and to exclude others from it

5. KINDS OF POSSESSION
Corporeal
Possession
Incorporeal
Possession
Mediate
Possession
Objects which have physical or materialistic manifestation, and which our senses can perceive are
corporeal possession. Thus, it is the persistent exercise of a claim on the use of material or tangible
objects. For Example House, car, cycle, pen, etc.
Immediate
Possession
Objects which don’t have any physical or materialistic manifestation, and which our senses cannot
perceive are incorporeal objects. Thus, it is the persistent exercise of a claim on the use of immaterial
or intangible objects. For example Trademark, goodwill, patent, copyright, etc.
Mediate possession of an object is the possession of a thing through a mediator (middleman) like an
agent, friend or servant. It is also called indirect possession. For example: If a landlord let his house to a
tenant. The tenant is bound to hand over the house to the landlord whenever he decides. So the landlord
has the mediate possession of the house through the tenant
When the possessor himself possesses the property or thing, we call it immediate possession or direct
possession. For example: when I buy a pen from a shop and keep it for myself. The pen is in the
immediate possession of mine.

6. KINDS OF POSSESSION
Constructive
Possession
Adverse
Possession
De facto
Possession
De Jure
Possession
Constructive Possession is the authority over an object without having actual possession or charge of that
material. In other words, we can say that constructive possession is not actually a possession but it is a
possession in law and not possession in fact. For example The delivery of my key by my car driver. Here
my driver was the constructive possessor of my car until he delivers me the key.
Adverse possession means the possession of some property or object, without legal title, for a certain time
period, sufficient to become acknowledged legal owner. Sometimes, we also define it informally as
“squatter’s rights”. In actual adverse possession of some property, the possessor is required to prove an
intention to keep it absolutely for oneself. Just claiming the property or paying liabilities for it, without
actually possessing it, is not sufficient.
It is a Latin word meaning ‘in fact’. De facto possession means the possession which exists in reality even
if it is not legally recognised.For example, A common law spouse can be considered as a de facto wife or
de facto husband though they are not lawfully married, yet they live like a married couple.
De jure is a Latin word meaning “in law”; lawful, legitimate or a matter of law. De jure possessions are
legally recognized possessions regardless of whether it exists in reality or not. It is also known as juridical
possession meaning possession in the eyes of law.For example, An owner of the house could cease a man
to live in a house but without intending and to abandon it for good. It is a case of De jure possession.

7. CASE
LAWS
Bridges v. Hawkesworth
Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff found banknotes on the floor of Defendant’s shop and left the notes
with Defendant to return to the proper owner, and, when the notes were unclaimed after three years,
asked that the notes be given to Plaintiff, a request which Defendant refused.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The mere fact that the banknotes were found on the floor of Defendant’s
shop was not sufficient for the Defendant to retain possession of the notes against the claim of
Plaintiff, the finder
Facts. Plaintiff was a traveler who conducted business with the Defendant at the shop of Defendant.
During one of Plaintiff’s visits, Plaintiff found a parcel of banknotes on the shop floor. Plaintiff gave
the banknotes over to Defendant for the purpose of returning the notes to the proper owner. Three
years elapsed with no one claiming the notes. Plaintiff then requested that the notes be returned to
Plaintiff, which Defendant refused. Plaintiff brought suit in trover. The lower court ruled for the
Defendant.Issue. Does the fact that the notes were found inside Defendant’s shop give him the right
to keep them against the claim of the Plaintiff, who found them?
Held. No. Judgment reversed.
First the Court determined that if Defendant was to prevail against Plaintiff it must be determined
when the right to the banknotes accrued to Defendant. The Court held that if the Defendant had such
a right to ownership of any item found within his shop, the finding itself would not have given the
Defendant any right of ownership, insofar as the Defendant would have already owned the item.
The banknotes were held to have never belonged to the Defendant. Because the notes were not
intentionally deposited there by the rightful owner, the Defendant had no responsibility to the notes.
The Court found no reason to find this case as an exception to the rule established in Armory v.
Delamirie, infra, which states that the finder of an object holds title to the object subject to no claims
except that of the rightful owner.
Discussion. Consider the differences between this case and the case which established the precedent
upon which this ruling was based.

8. CASE LAWS
SM Karim v Mst. Bibi Sakina
In SM Karim v Mst. Bibi Sakina following the
equitable principle of nec vi nec clam nec
precario (without force, without secrecy,
without permission), it was held that adverse
possession must be adequate in continuity, in
publicity and extent, and a plea is required, to
show when possession becomes adverse so that
the starting point of limitation against the party
affected can be found.
Bhimrao Dnyanoba Patil Vs State of
Maharashtra, 2003
In the case of Bhimrao Dnyanoba Patil Vs State
of Maharashtra, 2003 (1) Bom. L.R. 322; 2003(1)
All MR 565 ; 2003 (2) LJSoft 131, it has been
held that, unless enjoyment of the property is
accompanied by adverse animus, mere
possession for a long period even over a
statutory period, would not be sufficient to
mature the title to the property by adverse
possession.

9. Conclusion
It can be safely concluded that possession is the most fundamental relation between a man and a thing, but one of the most difficult concepts of the field of law. It is a
very vast concept consisting of various kinds and modes of acquisition which deal with the acquisition of res nullis too.
Hence, in terms of legal sense, possession is the main essential. In criminal law, it is given much more importance. It will be stated as the strong evidence against the
ownership. It gives a relation between man and a thing which indicates the intention to possess the thing and has the capacity of disposing it. A person has deemed to be
in legal possession if he has the physical power of the property.