CO-OWNER VS DERIVATIVE TITLE

Hello friends, today we shall talk about some of the differences between co-owner and concept known as a derivative title. In simplier language, a co-owner is a person who shares the joint right/title in a property. On the other hand, a person enjoying the derivative title, is the person who also enjoys a right in a property however it enjoys a right which is only inferior or to a lesser extent than that of the original owner. Secondly, the persons share in a co-ownership does not come in way to restrict his / her right in terms of enforcing the same against any third party. eg, suppose a person A and B are co-owners of a piece of land, wherein A has major share of say 70% & B has a share of 30%. Now say a person C has come and is trying to trespass in the said property without any authority. In such event, either A or B has full rights jointly as well as severally to institute a case in court of law and restrict C from entering. Here, either A or B can file a case and extent of their shares not come in way to institute the suit. Moreover, any of the co-owner can sell their share to any thrid party as much as to its extent and that person will now become a co-owner with that of the other existing owner. Also each of the co-owner is said to occupy the property on behalf of other co-owners with respect to their own individual shares. However, in case of derivative title, the person who has subsequently aquired the title do not have the same rights as that of the co-owner. For eg, in case a person A has mortgaged his property in favor of B. Now B being a mortgagee has not acquired rights as that of A being a mortgagor. In other words, it can be said that the person enjoying the derivative title, only enjoys a inferior title with respect to the original owner whereas if persons are the co-owners, then each person enoys the same primary right with respect to the property in question.

I hope I have made myself clear in explaining the basics of the topic discussed herein.

Thanks

Comments

MARRIAGE REGISTRATION PROCESS IN DELHI

Hello friends today we shall talk about the procedure for registration of marriage in Delhi. ELIGIBILITY The marriage must have been solemnized either under the Hindu Marriage Act or under the Special Marriage Act, The Groom must have attained the minimum age of 21 years. The bride must be of the age of 18 years at least. DOCUMENTS REQUIRED Photo ID proofs of both the parties like Aadhar card / PAN card / Voter card Date of birth proofs of both parties like 10 th certificate, etc. Permanent address proof must be there . Marriage photographs and Invitation Card. Passport Size Photographs of both parties. 2 witness in case marriage registered under Hindu Marriage Act or 3 witnesses in case it is registered under the Special Marriage Act along with their respective proofs like PAN CARD/ AADHAR CARD etc. An affidavit from both parties certifying the date of their marriage and more specifically stating that the marriage has not been performed between pers...

BENGALURU CONSUMER COURT IMPOSES PENALTY ON FLIPKART

RECENTLY BENGALURU DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DIRECTED ONLINE MERCHANT FLIPKART TO REFUND AN ANOUNT OF RS. 13,999/- ALONGWITH COMPENSATION OF RS. 10,000/- TO A 80-YEAR OLD FOR CAUSING MENTAL AGONY. BRIEF FACTS An 80 -Year Old Consumer ordered a treadmill on the online site of Opposite Party Flipkart. In compliance the treadmill was delivered to the consumer. At the time of installation of the product, it was revealed by the technician that the treadmill is faulty. On coming to know that the consumer returned the product to Flipkart and sought replacement. Initially Flipkart failed to replace the product but in some time, the replaced product was delivered to consumer, however, despite requests they failed to send the technician. When consumer tried to fix the same on its own, it was found that the product was of some other company. In other words, it was not the same product which has been initially ordered by the consumer. With no resolution, the consumer was left with no other option bu...

KERALA HIGH COURT BARS ENTRY OF 10 YEAR GIRL FROM ENTERING SABARIMALA TEMPLE

RECENTLY KERALA HIGH COURT DISMISSED WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION FILED BY FATHER ON BEHALF OF HIS 10- YEAR OLD GIRL FOR SEEKING AN ORDER TO ENTER SABARIMALA TEMPLE. THE SAME IS DISMISSED IN LIGHT OF REVIEW PENDING ON THE SAID ISSUE BEFORE THE LARGER BENCH OF THE APEX COURT. BRIEF FACTS 10 year old girl filed a writ petition before the Kerala HIgh Court seeking relief of mandamus seeking directions to Travancore Devaswom Board to allow her to offer pilgrimage to Sabarimala Temple without taking into account the restrictions of age since she has not attained puberty or in the alternative to allow the request of the minor on sympathetic grounds. It is contended by the Petitioner that they are planning to visit the temple since long and it has been delayed due to onset of Covid earlier. Now, the family is under distress and also the father of Petitioner is not in good health. Hence, they have applied the same online but since in the meanwhile the age of Petit...

WakeelSaab.in

Search This Blog