ipl-logo

Difference Between Ownership And Possession

1047 Words5 Pages

Course: Real Estates Law BUQS 2012

POSSESSION

What is Possession?
Possession is a control a person intentionally exercise toward a thing. To possess something especially corporeal thing you must have intention to possess it, you cannot claim that you have possession on something like a pencil which someone misplaced in your bag but without knowing that you are caring someone’s pencil. Possession does not always imply ownership. A person may be in possession of some property but that does not mean s/he is the owner. Example Police officers are always in possession of the state’s cars but that does not mean they are the ones who owns them. But in terms of Prescription Act 68 of 1969, possession can imply ownership, …show more content…

Even if a person is the rightful owner of the property but has no possession over it, the person who is in possession will be in a better position should the property ever be subject to challenge. However mere possession alone does not grant the possessor rights in the property superior to the actual.

What is the difference between Ownership and Possession
• Ownership signifies permanence whereas possession is mostly temporary. – The buyer of the truck, who owns it may lend it to a driver who is working for him. And the driver is said to be in possession of the truck but then the possession of the truck does not entitle him to ownership of the truck.
• Actual possession means physical control of a thing whereas ownership means the names that appears in the deed.
• Power and intention to control a thing is an essential concept of possession.
• Ownership is a guarantee by the law while possession is a physical …show more content…

Actually, interdict is a prohibition of doing something in order to stop violence of property rights in short notice.
Requirements for interdict
• Proof of a clear right about property
• Ongoing unlawful infringement – the court that the unlawful infringement is still going further or has not started. And the court will grant interdict only if the infringement will damage
• No other strong remedy – meaning interdict is the last remedy and it is used when there is no other remedy which can be used against the matter. In the case of Candid Electronics v Merchandise Buying Syndicate 1992 (C) it was decided that this requirement does not mean that the interdict should be denied because the applicant could always, if the damage is caused , wait and claim damages with different remedies at a later stage. Candid Electronics v Mechandise Buying Syndicate 1992 ( C )
Facts: The appellant (Candid) borrowed money from the respondent (MBS) and pledged VCR’s as security (pledge means that creditor has possession not ownership of property till debt is paid). The appellant discovered that the respondent was selling off the VCR’s unlawfully and applied for an

Show More
Related

  • Bounds V. Smith Argumentative Essay

    409 Words  | 2 Pages

    The case was heard in District Court and the respondents’ motion

    Read More

  • Absolute House V. Dale Hawthorn's Case

    319 Words  | 2 Pages

     In Caulfield the court concluded the defendant had no absolute right to enter his brother’s house because he had moved out two weeks ago and could no longer be considered an occupant. • Analysis o Dale Hawthorn’s Case  Hawthorn’s case is similar to Sears, Davenport, and Caulfield as Hawthorn had quit occupying the apartment for some time (more than several days) before committing the offense. Additionally, all three of those cases find no absolute right though each had some familial type relationship with those occupying building.  Davenport is also similar because just like Hawthorn, the defendant in Davenport willingly gave up his key to the domicile.

    Read More

  • Bernstein Of Leigh V. Skyview & General 1978 QB 479

    1226 Words  | 5 Pages

    The Extent Of “Ownership” in Land As discussed above, ownership in land is the interest in land or ownership of an estate. So as a fee simple owner, what rights does one have over the ground, under his or her property or in the airspace above it? From notary or lawyer point of view, these are very important questions because laws governing land, air and water boundaries are involved. “The maxim cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelom et ad inferos means whoever owns the soil, holds title all the way up to the heavens and down to the depths of the earth (Ziff 94).”

    Read More

  • Florida Vs Colegio Case Study

    1080 Words  | 5 Pages

    Facts: Jose Colegio filled up his gas tank at a gas station and took off without making payment. Issue: Florida vs. Colegio (Will robbery be an appropriate charge?) Rule(s): Florida statues under title XLVI 812.13 Robbery - (1) “Robbery” means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other property, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear. 812.014 Theft. — (1) 

    Read More

  • Summary: Immigrant Vs Defore

    570 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this situation it is not necessary to find out whether the items are lawfully owned. There are situations when items, not contraband at all, may be seized and submitted into evidence. In this case, if the coat had been priced fifty-one dollars rather than fifty dollars, it would have been a lawful arrest because the police officer might apprehend the defendant if a felony had been committed and there was a reasonable cause to think that he did it. In that case, there might

    Read More

  • D. R.: Case Study

    812 Words  | 4 Pages

    In addition, the court ordered that appellee grant relief of appropriate costs to appellant. Rules Utilized: Juv. R. 29(F)(2)(d) and R.C. 2945.67(A) In re N.I.;

    Read More

  • Sample Notice Of Appeal For Slye Karguy's Case

    689 Words  | 3 Pages

    760, 264 S.E.2d 258 (1979) (Westlaw) II. Parties: Reece/accused/plaintiff below/appellant here v. State of Georgia/prosecution/defendant below/respondent here (Reece v. State) III. Objectives of the Parties: The State wants to convict Reece for theft by receiving stolen property. Reece wants to avoid conviction and sentencing (Reece v. State).

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Croaker V. Clarke

    386 Words  | 2 Pages

    Under the 18 U.S.C sec. 2111, 2113, and 2118 statute, property in the presence of its owner will retain his possession. Which represents observation, reach, control or touch the property. However, Lake argued that he didn’t took the car with her presence, which means that she could not see or touch the car. But he took the keys in her presence. At this point, Clarke and Croaker states that they both were scared that Lake would shoot them or to cause a harm.

    Read More

  • Otis Argumentative Analysis

    458 Words  | 2 Pages

    Therefore, Martin’s lack of visitation to the property in a 20 year span of time adversely gave Otis possession of the parcel since he has claimed to have lived there for “some 20 years”. Obviously, a court would have to adjudicate.

    Read More

  • Comanche Indians Research Paper

    1803 Words  | 8 Pages

    Amongst the Great Plains of the United States were four groups of Indian tribes who dominated for years. In the South you had the Comanche Indians, in the central part of the plains you had the Arapaho and Cheyenne, and the tribe who roamed the northern plains were the almighty Sioux Indians. These four tribes roamed the plains and dominated in their sectors of the country. Now even though these tribes did not believe in ‘owning’ land they did believe in dominating the land. The way the tribes saw it then is the same way we see it now as putting a price on air, to them it wasn 't possible.

    Read More

  • Tommy Mccartney: An Example Of A Legal Case

    285 Words  | 2 Pages

    He does not want the car and gives the car back to the seller. The seller does not agree, and says the car is owned by Tommy and the money is his property. In this situation, the seller is right. The contract policy does not allow to return with full refund.

    Read More

  • If Mr. Jones And Cut-Rate Liquor, Was Intoxicated?

    1006 Words  | 5 Pages

    Whether the Defendant, Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor, sold a beverage in question to Mr. Watkins? 3) Intoxicating beverages. Whether the Defendant, Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor, sold intoxicating beverages, such as beer, wine, fortified wine or spirits to Mr. Watkins? 4) Intoxicated person.

    Read More

  • Howard Trail Vs Lesko Case Study

    448 Words  | 2 Pages

    Justin Smith Howard Trail v. Timothy Lesko (Case Brief 7) Facts Facebook is a social networking site, which is a web-based service. People create accounts and join communities with other people over the internet. Social networking sites use Web 2.0 technology.

    Read More

  • What Is The Great Mahele Act Of 1848 Unjustified?

    530 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Mahele was an important event, changing the way the land was divided. The Hawaiians would realize they would be going to lose their lands to the foreigners. The Mahele was unnecessary and caused great suffering for the Hawaiians. The only person who really needed it was the foreigners, it was a horrible idea. The Great Mahele Act of 1848 was unjustified because foreigners didn’t need to make new laws, Hawaiians lost land, and poverty came (http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ig.page&PageID=288) .

    Read More

  • Section 12-103 Summary

    778 Words  | 4 Pages

    1. However, if for some reason this Court should want to overlook the Plaintiff’s error and apply Section 12-103 of the Family Law Article, this Court would have to perform the analysis required under this section where it should still deny the Plaintiff’s motion in that at this time the Court is unable to make such an analysis without making a determination that there is justification or absence of justification of either party for either party for bringing, maintaining, or defending the current proceedings. 2. Currently before the Court, both parties are seeking to be awarded legal costs under Section 12-103(a)(1), whereas the Defendant is also seeking fees under Section 12-12-103(a)(2)(iii), 12-103(c).

    Read More

More about Difference Between Ownership And Possession

Open Document