scholarly journals Personal Law and Property Rights of Hindu Woman in India - The Need for Codifi cation

2018 ◽  
pp. 143-155
Author(s):  
Sindhu Thulaseedharan

In India, the familial relations of any citizen, including inheritance, are governed by law related to his or her religion, which came to be known as personal law. The property rights of Hindu woman from the vedic age refl ected that daughter was given a share equal to that of a son, who in the later age of smritis ( traditional law) , came to inherit only in the absence of male issue. The nature of property of a Hindu woman, stridhanam (woman’s property) thus came to be distorted from absolute property right to ‘limited estate’ known as ‘woman’s estate’. That is, the property passed only to the next heirs of the last male owner of the female intestate. The legislations in the pre-independent India strengthened the position of Hindu woman. But the later laws limited her interest in property to the sense that she could alienate it for certain purposes only and the property possessed by her devolved on the heirs of her husband and not on her own heirs. The retention of testamentary power has further undermined gender-equality largely. Even at present, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, allows existing property disputes to continue and does not affect rights that became vested prior to its implementation. Therefore, the codifi cation of personal law on succession becomes the need of the hour, since the patriarchal norms retained in the law have to be dropped.

Author(s):  
Aruna Nair

This chapter examines the law governing the availability of claims to traceable proceeds. It argues that the language used in the case law—which uses the terminology of property rights and of fiduciary relationships—cannot fully explain the law, since such claims are often available in the absence of fiduciary duties and are not available to holders of many types of property right. It argues that such claims instead presuppose a relationship of ‘control of assets’: where the defendant has a legal power to deal with some asset, correlating to a vulnerability to a loss of rights in that asset on the part of the claimant, and coupled with a duty not to exercise the power. It argues that relationships that have this formal structure also share normative characteristics that justify the subordination of defendant autonomy that has been shown to be at the heart of the tracing concept.


Author(s):  
Krystyna Szczepanowska-Kozłowska

AbstractOne form of industrial property right infringement is stocking for the purpose of offering or marketing. This form of infringement appears both in EU legal acts on trademarks or designs, as well as in national regulations, including those concerning patents. What is specific to stocking when compared to other activities comprising the stipulated exclusivity of the holder of industrial property rights is the fact that the literal meaning of “stocking” does not explain whether the infringing party or the warehouse keeper is the entity that places the goods in storage. The structure of industrial property rights as absolute rights would theoretically permit the view that the law is violated by both the entity that accepts the goods for storage and the entity that places such goods in storage. To determine if there is an infringement, it must be established what the goods being stocked are further intended for. It is not without significance that the finding of an infringement of industrial property rights does not depend on fault or awareness. From the point of view of the industrial property law regime, it is difficult to find arguments against this understanding of infringement by stocking. Since the offeror of goods infringing industrial property rights may be held liable even if the goods have not yet been manufactured, it is conceivable that the entity accepting such goods for stocking is also liable. This interpretation of the concept of stocking would certainly correspond to the absolute nature of liability for infringement.In a recent judgment the CJEU confirmed that the warehouse keeper who, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trademark rights only creates the technical conditions for trademark use by this third party provided that the warehouse keeper is not aware of that infringement. The CJEU also confirmed that only the person who decides about the purpose of storing the goods can be treated as an infringer. However, the CJEU did not respond to the question regarding whether the warehouse keeper could be treated as an infringer if it pursues the aims of storing the goods at the request of the entity that put the goods into storage.


Author(s):  
R. Maydanyk ◽  
◽  
N. Popova ◽  
N. Maydanyk ◽  
◽  
...  

The article examines the features of usufruct in the European countries of Romano-Germanic law, determines the terms for the implementation in the Law of Ukraine of the best practice of usufruct in terms of Europeanization and Recodification. The peculiarities of usufruct in some countries of Romano-Germanic law, particularly in Germany, France, Poland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova and Russia are studied. Usufruct, which is a flexible and universally recognized in the legal systems of Western Europe property right of personal possession for use, which is treated as an independent property right to another's property in the countries of Roman legal family or a kind of easement in the countries of German legal family, remains unknown to most countries – republics of the former Soviet Union. The law of Ukraine also does not provide for the institution of usufruct and regulates the relationship of long-term use of someone else's real estate through a number of limited property rights (emphyteusis, superficies, the right to economic management, the right to operational management) and obligational legal structures (usually land lease and property management). The authors came to the conclusion that it is necessary to introduce the institute of usufruct into the Ukrainian law by supplementing the Civil Code of Ukraine with a new chapter "Uzufruct", the framework provisions of which are proposed in this paper. In the law of Ukraine it is expedient to recognize usufruct as an independent, different from easement, real right of personal possession for use, which serves as a general provision on emphyteusis (the right to use someone else's land for agricultural purposes). In this regard, the provisions of Chapter 32 of the Civil Code of Ukraine on usufruct should be applied to relations under emphyteusis, unless otherwise provided by the provisions of the Central Committee on emphyteusis and does not follow from its essence. According to its purpose, the legal structure of the usufruct can perform any functions of personal possession for the use of another's property, which allows the use of this legal structure in any area of property use, regardless of whether the purpose is income or other socially useful result (charity, etc.). The absence of usufruct in the national law hinders the effective transformation of legal titles on a state and municipal property by waiving the right of economic management and the right of operative management in terms of recodification of the civil legislation, and does not promote formation of the full-fledged land market and its steady development in the terms of cancellation of the moratorium on sale of the agricultural lands, conducting commodity of agricultural production in Ukraine. Regarding the recodification and cancellation of the Commercial Code, usufruct is the most acceptable replacement of the right of economic management and the right of operative management. Along with long-term lease and property management, the usufruct is functionally similar to the right to economic management and the right to operational management. Unlike property management and lease, usufruct provides for paid or gratuitous use of property in the user's own interest (usufructuary), imperatively defined by law, the content of the rights of participants and a list of grounds for their termination under the rules of property rights.


Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Andreas Televantos

This chapter identifies and explores a core task of private law: to determine “third party effects” of transactions. We ask to what extent an A–B transaction may affect C, a party who enters into a subsequent transaction with A, or otherwise interferes with the right claimed by B. We show first that such third party effects are controlled not only by rules relating to legal property rights and equitable interests, but also by parts of the law of agency, of partnerships, and of tort. Secondly, whilst a range of doctrines thus share this function of controlling third party effects, it is important to distinguish between the precise legal form used by each doctrine. Thirdly, we argue that even when considering one particular form, such as that of a legal property right, third party effect is determined by the interaction of different types of rules, with the practical operation of one type of rule modified by the application of a different type. For this reason, attention must be paid to the interaction between the different forms used to govern third party effect. There is a question as to whether the law in this area is unduly complex, but we suggest that, so long as the range of forms tracks the diversity of ordinary transactions, private law usefully enhances party autonomy by offering parties these different means of casting their legal relations.


2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-453
Author(s):  
Jesse Wall

AbstractThis paper identifies an impasse between two conceptions of ‘property rights’. Formal conceptions explain ‘property rights’ in terms of an alienable right to exclude, that has moral significance in terms of individuals’ preference satisfaction, and describe a trust beneficiary as having a right against the trustees’ right. Functional conceptions explain a ‘property right’ in terms of the entitlements in a resource, which has moral significance in terms of a range of individual and social values, and describe a trust beneficiary as having a share in entitlements in the resource. This impasse has general implications for the normative analysis of property law and particular implications for the practical application of redistributive statutory provisions to discretionary trusts. The solution to this impasse lies in the abandoning the language of ‘property’ when we are concerned with the entitlements in a resource.


Land Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield

This chapter examines property rights in land and personal rights that may allow a party to make a particular use of land. It first considers the distinction between personal rights and property rights before addressing the content question: whether the type of right claimed by a party counts as a property right. To answer that question, a distinction is made between different types of property right. The most important distinction is between legal property rights, on the one hand, and equitable property rights, on the other. The chapter also discusses licences to use land and contrasts their operation and effect with those of property rights in land. It highlights the nature of licences and the controversy over contractual and estoppel licences and concludes with an analysis of the relationship between the law of leases and of licence.


Land Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 61-92
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield

This chapter examines property rights in land and personal rights that may allow a party to make a particular use of land. It first considers the distinction between personal rights and property rights before addressing the content question: whether the type of right claimed by a party counts as a property right. To answer that question, a distinction is made between different types of property right. The most important distinction is between legal property rights, on the one hand, and equitable property rights, on the other. The chapter also discusses licences to use land and contrasts their operation and effect with those of property rights in land. It highlights the nature of licences and the controversy over contractual and estoppel licences and concludes with an analysis of the relationship between the law of leases and of licence.


Author(s):  
Duško Medić

Property right as the most extensive legally recognized ownership on things has also wide-ranging legal protection. The author deals with the issue of the protection of the property rights in accordance with the Republika Srpska Law of Proprietary Rights. This Law distinguishes property claim for return on things (rei vindicatio), hypothetical property claim, (actio Publiciana) and claim for intrusion or disturbance (actio negatoria). The aforementioned claims also existed in the Roman legislation. Principles regarding protection of the property rights, mostly apply to the protection of rights of co-owners and joint proprietors.


SEEU Review ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-149
Author(s):  
Emine Zendeli

AbstractThe article aims to analyze the legal norms that regulate the protection of the property right in the legal system of the Republic of Macedonia. In most cases, the protection of property right is realized through suits; however, our legal system provides for the possibility that the protection of property right can also be realized through the registration of immovable property rights in the respective Public Registries.Given the fact that in the Republic of North Macedonia the normative regulation of property suits is not contained in a single normative act, but rather extends to several such acts, the article, based on the practice of the high courts, seeks to analyze the legal cases related to property rights that qualify as rights similar to property rights, but which enjoy legal protection provided by law.The article will mainly elaborate on the basic provisions on property protection suits contained in the Law on Ownership and other Real Rights (2001). However, in this context, the provisions on property protection that are contained in the Law on Real Estate Cadastre (2008), the Law on Contentious Procedure (2005), the Law on Securing of Claims (2007), the Law on Construction Land (2008), etc., will also be taken into consideration.


2014 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 559-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Essert

A theoretical account of property rights needs to identify what, if anything, is distinctive about property rights as opposed to other sorts of rights; what makes them the sorts of rights that they are. An important and prominent account of the distinctiveness of property rights claims that they are rights to things. I argue against this view: I show that a government-issued licence (to fish or to drive a taxi or to operate a radio station, say) is not a right to a thing but should nevertheless count as a property right. I consider two different arguments for this rights-to-things view: one is based on the Hohfeldian structure of property rights, and one relies on the importance of information costs in the law of property. While each of these arguments teaches us important lessons about property, none can properly support the conclusion that property is rights to things. I suggest that abandoning the rights-to-things view of property can lead to important insights into property theory more generally.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document