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

Parental disputes or pending matrimonial and criminal matters between the natural guardians cannot constitute a valid statutory reason for refusal to issue passport says Allahabad High Court

Facts and Background The case involved a minor child aged about 2 years at the time of application whose mother applied for her passport on January 17, 2025. Despite completing all required formalities, the passport authorities kept the application pending indefinitely. The reason cited was the ongoing matrimonial dispute and criminal cases between the child's parents (the natural guardians). The authorities essentially treated these parental conflicts as a ground to withhold progress on the minor's passport application. The mother approached the Allahabad High Court via a writ petition, seeking directions for expeditious processing and issuance. Observations of the Court Section 6 is Exhaustive and Mandatory Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, provides the complete and exclusive list of grounds on which a passport authority may refuse to issue a passport or travel document. - These grounds include matters like: ...

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...

DISTRICT COURT THRISSUR, KERALA HELD AIR ASIA LIABLE FOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

Introduction District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Thrissur, Kerala (India), held AirAsia India Limited liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Facts and Background In this matter, a passenger's flight was cancelled by the airline for operational reasons. Under applicable rules (including those from India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation or DGCA, and the Consumer Protection Act), passengers are typically entitled to a full refund in such cases, and many airlines (including low-cost carriers like AirAsia) are expected to process automatic refunds promptly without requiring manual claims in straightforward cancellations. However, AirAsia failed to issue an automatic refund for the ticket amount (which was ₹2,983). The passenger made repeated attempts to obtain the refund but faced ongoing issues and harassment, ultimately having to approach the consumer forum to recover even this small sum. This caused financial loss, inconvenience, a...

WakeelSaab.in

Search This Blog