Corpus Possession means that there exists such physical contact of the thing by the possessor as to give rise to the reasonable assumption that other person will not interfere with it. Existence of corpus broadly depends on (1) upon the nature of the thing itself, and the probability that others will refrain from interfering with the enjoyment of it; (2) possession of real property, i.e., when a man sets foot over the threshold of a house, or crosses the boundary line of his estate, provided that there exist no factors negativing his control, for example the continuance in occupation of one who denies his right; and (3) acquisition of physical control over the objects it encloses. Corpus, therefore, depends more upon the general expectations that others will not interfere with an individual control over a thing, then upon the physical capacity of an individual to exclude others.
The animus possidendi is the conscious intention of an individual to exclude others from the control of an object.
There is also a concept of “constructive possession” which is depicted by a symbolic act. It has been narrated with an illustration that delivery of keys of a building may give right to constructive possession of all the contents to the transferee of the key.
A person other than the owner, if continued to have possession of immoveable property for a period as prescribed in a Statute providing limitation, openly, without any interruption and interference from the owner, though he has knowledge of such possession, would crystallize in ownership after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, if the real owner has not taken any action for reentry and he shall be denuded of his title to the property in law. “Permissible Possession” shall not mature a title since it cannot be treated to be an “adverse possession”. Such possession for however length of time be continued, shall not either be converted into adverse possession or a title. It is only the hostile possession which is one of the condition for adverse possession. Bhikhari v. D.D.C., 2018 (141) RD 130.
The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by rent control laws has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. Indeed, ownership is a relative term, the import whereof depends on the context in which it is used. In rent control legislation, the landlord can be said to be the owner if he is entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for and on behalf of someone else to evict the tenant and then to retain control, hold and use the premises for himself. What may suffice and hold good as proof of ownership in Landlord-tenant litigation probably may or may not be enough to successfully sustain a claim for ownership in a title suit. Boorugu Mahadev and Sons v. Sirigiri Narasing Rao, (2016) 3 SCC 343.
It is a settled principle of law that once a partition in the sense of division of right, title or status is proved or admitted, the presumption is that all joint property was partitioned or divided. Undoubtedly the joint and undivided family being the normal condition of a Hindu family, it is usually presumed, until the contrary is proved, that every Hindu family is joint and undivided and all its property is joint. This presumption, however, cannot be made once a partition (of status or property), whether general or partial, is shown to have taken place in a family. Kesharbai v. Tarabai Prabhakarrao Nalawade, 2014 (3) AWC 2732.
The word ‘sale’ has been defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The definition says that sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
Ownership is defined as the relation between a person and an object forming the subject matter of his ownership. It consists in a complex of rights, all of which are right in rem, being good against all the world and not merely against specific person. Owner will have a right to possess the thing which he owns. He may not necessarily have possession of the property or he may have been wrongly deprived of it or may have voluntarily divested himself of it. The owner normally has the right to use and enjoy the thing and right to manage it, i.e. the right to decide how it shall be used. Whereas the right to possession is a right in the strict sense. The position of an owner differs from that of a non-owner in possession in that the latter’s interest is subject to be determined at some future set point. Lastly, the ownership has a residuary character. He might have divested his position by creating lease or mortgage, still his ownership would consist of residuary rights, i.e. the right which remains when all these lesser rights have been given away. Shanti Bhushan v. State of U.P., 2013 (3) AWC 2700.