Jurisprudence - Ownership

Jurisprudence - Ownership

By:

Vijay SARDANA

Advocate, Delhi High Court

Legal experts have defined ownership in different ways. 

All of them accept the right of ownership as the complete or supreme right that can be exercised over anything.

According to Hibbert ownership includes four kinds of rights within itself.

• Right to use a thing

• Right to exclude others from using the thing

• Disposing of the thing

• Right to destroy it.

• Indefinite User

• Unrestricted Disposition

• Unlimited Duration

• Possession

• Enjoyment

• Disposition

• Ownership is a relation between a person and the right that is vested in him

• Ownership is incorporeal body or form

Absolute: when ownership is acquired by over previously ownerless object.

Extinctive:  which is where there is extinctive of previous ownership by an independence adverse act on the part of the acquiring. This is how the right of easement is acquiring after the passage of time prescribed by law.

Accessory: that is when requisition of ownership is the result of accession. For example, if three fruits, the produce belongs to the owner unless he has parted with to the same. When ownership is derived from the previous version of law then it is called derivate acquisition. That is derived mode takes place from the title of the prior owner. It is derived either by purchase, exchange, will, gift etc.

Trust and Beneficial Ownership: 

There is no distinction between legal and equitable estates in India. Under the Indian Trusts Act, a trustee is the legal owner of the trust property and the beneficiary has no direct interest in the trust property itself. However, he has a right against the trustees to compel them to carry out the provisions of the trust. 

• Right to possession

• Right to enjoy the property

• Right to dispose

Austin’s definition:

Austin while defining ownership has focused on the three main attributes of ownership, namely, indefinite user, unrestricted disposition and unlimited duration.

The state can interfere in the ownership. The abolition of Zamindari system in India, the abolition of privy purses, Nationalization of Bank and Companies, etc. are some example of the fact that the ownership can be cut short by the state for a public purpose and its duration is not unlimited. 

Austin’s definition has been followed by Holland. He defines ownership as plenary control over an object. According to him, an owner has three rights on the subject owned.

Planetary control over an object implies complete control unrestricted by any law or fact. Thus, the criticism levelled against Austin’s definition would apply to that given by Holland in so far as the implication of the term “plenary control” goes. 

Salmond’s Definition:

According to the Salmond - ownership vests in the complex of rights which he exercises to the exclusive of all others. For Salmond what constitutes ownership is a bundle of rights which inhere resides in an individual. Salmond’s definition thus points out two attributes of ownership:

MODERN LAW AND OWNERSHIP:

Under modern law there are the following modes of acquiring ownership which may be broadly classed under two heads, viz:

1.     Original mode:

2.     Derivative mode:

Original mode:

The original mode is the result of some independence personal act of acquiring himself. The mode of acquisition maybe three kinds.

Indian Transferee Acts of property rules for the transfer of immovable property, Sale of goods Acts for the transfer of property of the firm and the companies Act for the transfer of company property.

SUBJECT MATTER OF OWNERSHIP

Normally ownership implies the following:

• The right to manage
• The right to posses
• The right to capital
• The right to the income

CHARACTERISTICS OF OWNERSHIP

An analysis of the concept of ownership, it would show that it has the following characteristics:

• Ownership may either be absolute or restricted, that is, it may be exclusive or limited. Ownership can be limited by agreements or by operation of law. The right of ownership can be restricted in time of emergency. An owner is not allowed to use his land or property in a manner that it is injurious to others. His right of ownership is not unrestricted. The owner has a right to possess the thing that he owns. It is immaterial whether he has actual possession of it or not. The most common example of this is that an owner leasing his house to a tenant. Law does not confer ownership on an unborn child or an insane person because they are incapable of conceiving the nature and consequences of their acts. 
• Ownership is residuary in character: The right to ownership does not end with the death of the owner; instead, it is transferred to his heirs. Restrictions may also be imposed by law on the owner’s right of disposal of the thing owned. Any alienation of property made with the intent to defeat or delay the claims of creditors can be set aside. 

Kinds of Ownership

There are many kinds of ownership and some of them are corporeal and incorporeal ownership, sole ownership and co-ownership, legal and equitable ownership, vested and contingent ownership, trust and beneficial ownership, co-ownership and joint ownership and absolute and limited ownership. 

Ownership may be classified under the following heads :

I. Corporeal and incorporeal ownership;

2. Sole ownership and co-ownership;

3. Legal and equitable ownership;

4. Trust and beneficial ownership;

5. Vested and contingent ownership; and

6. Absolute and limited ownership;

Corporeal and Incorporeal Ownership

Corporeal ownership is the ownership of a material object and incorporeal ownership is the ownership of a right. Ownership of a house, a table or a machine is corporeal ownership. Ownership of a copyright, a patent or a trademark is incorporeal ownership. The distinction between corporeal and incorporeal ownership is connected with the distinction between corporeal and incorporeal things.

Incorporeal ownership is described as ownership over tangible things. Corporeal things are those which can be perceived and felt by the senses and which are intangible.

Incorporeal ownership includes ownership over intellectual objects and encumbrances. 

Trust ownership is an instance of duplicate ownership. Trust property is that which is owned by two persons at the same time. The relation between the two owners is such that one of them is under an obligation to use his ownership for the benefit of the other. The ownership is called beneficial ownership. The ownership of a trustee is nominal and not real, but in the eye of law the trustee represents his beneficiary.

In a trust, the relationship between the two owners (one is trustee owner and another is beneficiary owner) is such that one of them is under an obligation to use his ownership for the benefit of the other. The former is called the trustee and his ownership is trust ownership. The latter is called the beneficiary and his ownership is called beneficial ownership. 

In simple terms, A trust is an instance of duplicate ownership namely, trust ownership and beneficial ownership. In a trust certain property is given in trust or confidence to a person or a definite group of persons to be held under an obligation for the benefit of some other persons or group of persons.

Trust is defined as an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, and arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner, or (b) declared and accepted by him for the benefit of the other.

Legal and Equitable Ownership

Legal ownership is that which has its origin in the rules of common law and equitable ownership is that which proceeds from the rules of equity. In many cases, equity recognizes ownership where law does not recognize ownership owing to some legal defect.

Legal rights may be enforced in rem but equitable rights are enforced in personam as equity acts in personam. One person may be the legal owner and another person the equitable owner of the same thing or right at the same time.

The equitable ownership of a legal right is different from the ownership of an equitable right. The ownership of an equitable mortgage is different from the equitable ownership of a legal mortgage. 

For information, but in English law recognises two forms of ownership—legal and equitable. In England before the passage of Judicature Acts of 1873, and 1875 there existed two kinds of Courts with two quite distinct jurisdictions. These two Courts were known as the Common Law Courts and the Equity Courts.

The rights recognised and protected by the Common Law Courts were called legal or Common Law Rights and the rights enforced by Equity Courts were known as equitable rights.

Legal ownership is, therefore, that ownership which was or recognised by the rules of Common Law, while equitable ownership is that which originated from the rules of equity.

Equitable ownership was thus not recognised by the Common Law Courts. The Chancery or Equity Courts recognised legal ownership as well as the equitable ownership.

Keeton says, “This quality of legal and equitable ownership arises, whenever one person holds the legal title to property, the beneficial enjoyment of which is vested in another. Thus the legal owner is he whom the Common law could designate as the owner ; the Equitable owner is that person whom the Court of Chancery would formerly have protected in the enjoyment of a thing.”

Vested and Contingent Ownership

Ownership is either vested or contingent. It is vested ownership when the title of the owner is already perfect. It is contingent ownership when the title of the owner is yet imperfect but is capable of becoming perfect on the fulfilment of some condition.

In the case of vested ownership, ownership is absolute. In the case of contingent ownership it is conditional.

For instance, a testator may leave property to his wife for her life and on her death to A, if he is then alive, but if A is dead to B. Here A and B are both owners of the property in question, but their ownership is merely contingent. It must, however, be stated that contingent ownership of a thing is something more than a simple chance or possibility of becoming an owner. It is more than a mere spes acquisitionis. Contingent ownership is based upon the mere possibility of a future acquisition, but it is based upon the present existence of an inchoate or incomplete title. 

It is vested when the owner’s title is already perfect; it is litigant when his title is as vet imperfect, but is capable of becoming perfect on the fulfilment of some condition or contingency. Vested ownership is absolute, contingent ownership is conditional. It is subject to conditions and it may be made to commence or cease upon the ascertainment that a certain fact does not exist.

Thus, I may be the owner of a piece of land on condition of paying a certain fixed sum of money annually to the State. My ownership is thus conditional on the annual payment of the money.

Contingent ownership is not spes acquisitions —Simple chance or mere possibility of becoming owners—but more than that. It is more than a mere future possibility but the existence of an inchoate or incomplete title in the present, capable of achieving completion and perfection on the happening of a given contingency in future.

The conditions on which ownership depends may be either ‘condition precedent’ or ‘condition subsequent’. A condition precedent is one by the fulfilment of which a title is completed; a condition subsequent is one on the fulfilment of which a title already completed is extinguished. In the former case ownership which was formerly conditional becomes ab-solute. In the latter, case the ownership which is already lost conditionally, is lost absolutely. In case of a condition, subsequent ownership is not contingent but vested. For the condition attached to the ownership it is not with regard to commencement of ownership but with regard to continence of it.

Sole Ownership and Co-ownership

Ownership may be either sole or duplicate. When it is vested in one person it is called sole ownership; when it is invested in two or more persons at the same time, it is called duplicate ownership.

The chief instances of duplicate ownership are ;

(i) Co-ownership;

(ii) Trust and beneficial ownership;

(iii) Legal and equitable ownership;

(iv) Vested and, contingent ownership.

Co-ownership that is to say, ownership shared by several persons with equal or co-ordinate results may be of two kinds, namely:—

(a) Joint ownership, and

(b) Ownership-in-common.

(a) ‘Joint ownership’ is that whereon the death of one of the co-owners, the whole right ensures for the benefit of surviving co-owner or co-owners, until at last when the last survivor of the joint owners, dies, it would devolve on his heirs. The heirs of a predeceased co-owner will not get any share at all in the property of the joint owner.

(b) “Ownership-in-common” is that where on the death of one of the co-owners, his heirs step into his shoes.

Ordinarily, a right is owned by one person only at a time. However, duplicate ownership is as much possible as sole ownership. When the ownership is vested in a single person, it is called sole ownership; when it is vested in two or more persons at the same time, it is called co-ownership, of which co-ownership is a species. For example, the members of a partnership firm are co-owners of the partnership property.

Under Indian law, a co-owner is entitled to three essential rights, namely

Co-ownership and Joint Ownership

According to Salmond, “co-ownership may assume different forms. Its two chief kinds in English law are distinguished as ownership in common and joint ownership. The most important difference between these relates to the effect of the death of one of the co-owners. If the ownership is common, the right of a dead man descends to his successors like other inheritable rights, but on the death of one of two joint owners, his ownership dies with him and the survivor becomes the sole owner by virtue of this right of survivorship. 

Absolute and Limited Ownership:

An absolute owner is the one in whom are vested all the rights over a thing to the exclusion of all. When all the rights of ownership, i.e. possession, enjoyment and disposal are vested in a person without any restriction, the ownership is absolute. But when there are restrictions as to user, duration or disposal, the ownership will be called limited ownership.

For example, prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a woman had only limited ownership over the estate because she held the property only for her life and after her death; the property passed on to the last heir or last holder of the property. Another example of limited ownership in English law is life tenancy when an estate is held only for life. 

Jurisprudence - Possession, Possession-in-Fact and Possession-in-Law

Jurisprudence - Possession, Possession-in-Fact and Possession-in-Law

By:

Vijay Sardana
Advocate, Delhi High Court

In law, possession is the control a person intentionally exercises toward a thing.

In all cases, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it. A person may be in possession of some property (although possession does not always imply ownership). Like ownership, the possession of things is commonly regulated by states under property law.

Intention to possess

An intention to possess (sometimes called animus possidendi) is the other component of possession. All that is required is an intention to possess something for the time being. In common law countries, the intention to possess a thing is a fact.

Normally, it is proved by the acts of control and surrounding circumstances.

It is possible to intend to possess something without knowing that it exists. For example, if you intend to possess a suitcase, then you intend to possess its contents, even though you do not know what it contains. It is important to distinguish between the intention sufficient to obtain possession of a thing and the intention required to commit the crime of possessing something illegally, such as banned drugs, firearms or stolen goods.

The intention to exclude others from the garage and its contents do not necessarily amount to the guilty mind of intending to possess stolen goods.

When people possess places to which the public has access, it may be difficult to know whether they intend to possess everything within those places. In such circumstances, some people make it clear that they do not want possession of the things brought there by the public. For example, it is not uncommon to see a sign above the coat rack in a restaurant which disclaims responsibility for items left there.

Possession is very difficult to define in English Jurisprudence. But it a very important topic. Human life and society would become impossible without retention and consumption of material and non-material things. Food, clothes, tools, etc. are essential items to use. We get hold over the first to claim possession. It is not just acquisition of things but it is a continuing claim for use of them. It may be legal or illegal.

Corporeal and incorporeal possession:

Corporeal possession is the possession of a material or tangible objects, thus it is continuing exercise of a claim on the use of material or tangible object.

Incorporeal possession is the possession of a non-material or intangible object. Thus it is continuing exercise of a claim on the use of the non-material or intangible object.

There are two essential elements of possession, i.e., animus and corpus.

•  Animus is the intent or mental condition or activity or claim of exclusive use of the thing possessed. Cloth at tailor’s shop is in possession of tailor but he may not intend to exclude the owner or subject of the owner. Animus may be legal or illegal. The only test is whether the man in possession intends to exclude others or not. The general intent is enough to constitute possession. All books in the library, all fishes in net, all sheep in the flock, are subject of intent whether in knowledge or not, thus possession completes.

•  Corpus is the second element, which is essential and completes possession. It is an objective part of possession. Both animus and corpus are necessary for possession.

The intent to exclude to others from interfering with the object possessed must be evidenced by physical facts. If there is no action then no intention is expressed. Pen in my pocket, ring on my finger, or goods in my home, are the corpus of my possession of each of these.

Kinds of corporeal possession:

Immediate possession means direct or proximate possession without agency and mediates possession means in between or remote possession. It is acquired with the agency.

•  A being a servant holds something for his master B. A has immediate possession while possession of B is mediate.

•  Where both claim possession, e.g., tenant and landlord.

•  In case of bailment, pledge or mortgage, both have claimed.

A has the exclusive right of possession on his land while the right of way over his land is concurrent. 

How the possession is acquired?

Following are some points which can be referred to acquire or loss the ownership:

•  Possession itself is evidence of being an owner. Pen in my hand is evidence being owner, regardless legally or illegally.

•  The person in possession is presumed to be the owner. A house in my possession is presumed my ownership along with all the things lying in it.

•   Anything can be held wrongfully or by fraud.

•   Long possession of twelve years confers the title in the property, which may belong to others. When a title is conferred to another even without ownership is the acquisition of possession.

Definition:

Possession is defined as “it is continuing exercise of a claim to the exclusive use of it.”

It does not cover incorporeal possession. Possession is different from ownership but normally possession and ownership lie together.

How the possession is acquired?

Lease, renting out, pledge, mortgage, theft, fraud, and bailment etc. is the general mode of acquisition of possession.

Possession is of two kinds, i.e.,

•                  possession in fact or de facto and

•                  possession in law or de jure.

Some discordance in law and fact occurs. Law something presumes which may not actually exist. Normally possession in law and possession, in fact, exist in a person but it may vary.

Possession in fact or de facto:

It means the possession, which physically exists in term of control over it. It can be seen landlord and tenant where the tenant holds possession of the house physically or de facto, but it is not possession in law or de jure.

Possession in law or de jure:

It is the possession which, in the eyes of law, exists. It may exclude physical control over it. It is also called constructive possession. A servant may possess a car, but in the eyes of law, it is the possession of master. Possession of bailor through bailee is de jure possession on the part of the bailor.

Importance of possession:

Possession is one of the most important concepts in property law. There are three related and overlapping but not identical legal concepts:

1.     Possession,

2.     Right of possession and

3.     Ownership.

In common law countries, possession is itself a property right. The owner of a property has the right of possession and may assign that right wholly or partially to another who may then also assign the right of possession to a third party. For example, an owner of residential property may assign the right of possession to a property manager under a property management contract who may then assign the right of possession to a tenant under a rental agreement. There is a rebuttable presumption that the possessor of the property also has the right of possession, and evidence to the contrary may be offered to establish who has the legal right of possession to determine who should have actual possession, which may include evidence of ownership (without assignment of the right of possession) or evidence of a superior right of possession without ownership.

Possession of a thing for long enough can become ownership by the termination of the previous owner's right of possession and ownership rights. In the same way, the passage of time can bring to an end the owner's right to recover exclusive possession of a property without losing the ownership of it, as when an adverse easement for use is granted by a court.

In civil law countries, possession is not a right but a (legal) fact which enjoys certain protection by the law. It can provide evidence of ownership but it does not in itself satisfy the burden of proof. For example, ownership of a house is never proven by mere possession of a house.

Possession is a factual state of exercising control over an object, whether owning the object or not. Only a legal (possessor has legal ground), bona fide (possessor does not know he has no right to possess) and regular possession (not acquired through force or by deceit) can become ownership over the passage of time. A possessor enjoys certain judicial protection against third parties even if he is not the owner.

The distinction between ownership and possession:

There may be varying degrees of rights to possession. For example, if you leave a book that belongs to you at a cafe and the waiter picks it up, you have lost possession. When you return to recover the book, even though the waiter has possession, you have a better right to possession and the book should be returned. This example demonstrates the distinction between ownership and possession: throughout the process you have not lost ownership of the book although you have lost possession at some point.

Completion of possession:

• Power of possession: It shows possession. Books or watch in my hand excludes others thus possession is complete. Things under lock and key are also possession.

•  Presence of possession: A person may be feeble and unable to exclude others but his presence may command respect. Cash in the hand of a child is possession.

• Secrecy: Mere knowledge that I have cash in the bank, which is exclusive knowledge, is possession.

• Continuing use: I use pen continuously, read the book continuously, use of transport, is possession.

• Customs: In some localities, people are not allowed to interfere to other things even presence is not there, like in Saudi Arabia where people leave their shops to remain open and go to offer prayer and no interference is allowed. It is possession even in absence.

•  Respect of rightful claim: In law-abiding societies, people do not interfere in the right of other and rightful claim generally obtain security from the general acquisition.

Obtaining possession:

Possession requires both control and intention. It is obtained from the first moment that both those conditions exist simultaneously. Usually, intention precedes control, as when you see a coin on the ground and reach down to pick it up. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that a person might obtain control of a thing before forming the intention to possess it. If someone unknowingly sat on and therefore had control of a coin on the seat of a train, he or she could obtain possession by becoming aware of the coin and forming the intention to possess it.

People can also intend to possess things left, without their knowledge, in spaces they control.

Possession can be obtained by a one-sided act by which factual control is established. This can take the form of apprehension (means taking an object, not in someone's possession) or seizure (means taking an object in someone's possession). It can also be obtained through a two-sided process of handing over the possession from one party to another. The party handing over possession must intend to do so.

Acquisition of possession:

Possession is acquired when both the animus and corpus are acquired:

• By taking: When someone takes anything, he has possession. It may either be rightful or wrongful possession.

•  By delivery: The thing is acquired by delivery with consents of the previous possessor.

• Actual delivery: Actual delivery is a kind in which goods are delivered while constructive delivery is the rental or sold goods.

Possession acquired by consent:

Most properties possessed is obtained with the consent of someone else who possessed it. They may have been purchased, received as gifts, leased, or borrowed. The transfer of possession of goods is called delivery.

For land, it is common to speak of granting or giving possession.

A temporary transfer of possession is called a bailment. 
Bailment is often regarded as the separation of ownership and possession. For example, the library continues to own the book while you possess it and will have the right to possess it again when your right comes to an end. A common transaction involving bailment is a conditional sale or hire-purchase, in which the seller lets the buyer have possession of the thing before it is paid for. The buyer pays the purchase price in instalments and, when it is fully paid, ownership of the thing is transferred from seller to buyer.

Possession acquired without consent:

It is possible to obtain possession of a thing without anyone else's consent.

• First, you might take possession of something which has never been possessed before. This can occur when you catch a wild animal; or create a new thing, such as a portion of food.
• Secondly, you might find something which someone else has lost.
• Thirdly, you might take something from another person without their consent.

Possession acquired without consent is a property right which the law protects. It gives rise to a right of possession which is enforceable against everyone except those with a better right to possession.

Forms of transferring possession:

There are various forms of transferring possession.

One can physically hand over the object (e.g. handing over a newspaper bought at the newsstand) but it is not always necessary for the party to literally grab the object for possession to be considered transferred.

It is enough that the object is within the realm of factual control (e.g. leaving a letter in the letterbox).

Sometimes it is enough for a symbol of the object which enables factual control to be handed over (e.g. handing over the keys to a car or a house).

Termination of Possession:
One may also choose to terminate possession, as one throws a letter in the trash. Possession includes having the opportunity to terminate possession.

Res nullius

Res nullius means ownerless things or objects. Terra nullius means no man land. A person, who finds lost goods, while passing on the road, e.g., a wallet, being the first finder, he has good title against the whole world except the true owner, even if it is found on another person property without committing trespass. This is the rule. 
Any other person who looks at finder of lost goods cannot demand his share from lost goods. If a customer finds a lost wallet while shopping in a store which is not identifiable, can retain till reasonable time to wait for its true owner. He is obliged to bring this matter into the knowledge of shopkeeper and give him his own address. If the true owner did not come until a reasonable time, he will hold the title. 
There are many other things which have no owner, i.e., gems stone, metal, gold, silver, natural resources, bird, animal, provided these things are found in the way, without committing trespass. A precious stone cannot be held from the area specified by the government. Bird or fish cannot be hunt from the area of the property holder. Things cannot behold from another house. The bird cannot be a hunt, which is prohibited.

There are three exceptions in this rule:

• Owner of the property on which the thing is found is in possession of the thing itself as well as property, or
• If the finder is servant or agent then master or principal has a title, or
• The wrongful act does not constitute possession. Trespass is not allowed.

Important:
Natural resources in the economic zone like water, sea, land etc. belong to the government. If treasure comes out from other property will also belong to the government. 

Visit again, this article will be reviewed after a few days.

Jurisprudence - Nature and Concept of Legal Person

Jurisprudence: 

Nature and Concept  of Legal Person

By: 

Vijay Sardana
Advocate, Delhi High Court

Artificial personality, legal person, juridical personality, or juristic personality is the characteristic of a non-living entity regarded by law to have the status of personhood.

Creation and History of the Doctrine:

The concept of legal personhood for organizations of people is at least as old as Ancient Rome: a variety of collegial institutions enjoyed the benefit under Roman law.

The doctrine has been attributed to Pope Innocent IV, who seems at least to have helped spread the idea of persona ficta as it is called in Latin. In canon law, the doctrine of persona ficta allowed monasteries to have a legal existence that was apart from the monks, simplifying the difficulty in balancing the need for such groups to have infrastructure though the monks took vows of personal poverty. Another effect of this was that as a fictional person, a monastery could not be held guilty of delict due to not having a soul, helping to protect the organization from non-contractual obligations to surrounding communities. This effectively moved such liability to individuals acting within the organization while protecting the structure itself, since individuals were considered to have a soul and therefore capable of being guilty of negligence and excommunicated.

In the common-law tradition, only a person could sue or be sued. This was not a problem in the era before the Industrial Revolution when the typical business venture was either a sole proprietorship or partnership—the owners were simply liable for the debts of the business. A feature of the corporation, however, is that the owners/shareholders enjoyed limited liability—the owners were not liable for the debts of the company. Thus, when a corporation breached a contract or broke a law, there was no remedy, because limited liability protected the owners and the corporation wasn't a legal person subject to the law. There was no accountability for corporate wrongdoing.

To resolve the issue, the legal personality of a corporation was established to include five legal rights—the right to a common treasury or chest (including the right to own property), the right to a corporate seal (i.e., the right to make and sign contracts), the right to sue and be sued (to enforce contracts), the right to hire agents (employees) and the right to make by-laws (self-governance).

Since the 19th century, legal personhood has been further construed to make it a citizen, resident, or domiciliary of a state (usually for purposes of personal jurisdiction). 

Concept:

A legal or juridical or artificial person (Latin: persona ficta; also juristic person) has a legal name and has certain rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities in law, similar to those of a natural person. The concept of a juridical person is a fundamental legal fiction. It is pertinent to the philosophy of law, as it is essential to laws affecting a corporation (corporations law).

Legal / Juridical personality allows one or more natural persons (universitas personarum) to act as a single entity (body corporate) for legal purposes.

In many jurisdictions, artificial personality allows that entity to be considered under law separately from its individual members (for example in a company limited by shares, its shareholders). They may sue and be sued, enter contracts, incur debt, and own property. Entities with legal personality may also be subjected to certain legal obligations, such as the payment of taxes.

An entity with legal personality may shield its members from personal liability.

In some common-law jurisdictions, a distinction is drawn between corporation aggregate (such as a company, which has a number of members) and a corporation sole (which is where a person's public office is deemed to have a separate personality from them as an individual). Both have separate legal personality.

Historically most corporations sole were ecclesiastical in nature (for example, the Archbishop of Canterbury is a corporation sole), but a number of other public offices are now formed as corporations’ sole.

The concept of juridical personality is not absolute. "Piercing the corporate veil" refers to looking at the individual natural persons acting as agents involved in a company action or decision; this may result in a legal the decision in which the rights or duties of a corporation or public limited the company are treated as the rights or liabilities of that corporation's members or directors.

The concept of a juridical person is now central to Western law in both common-law and civil-law countries, but it is also found in virtually every legal system.

Examples:

Some examples of juridical persons include:

•  Cooperatives (co-ops), business organization owned and democratically operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit

•  Corporations are bodies corporate created by statute or charter. A corporation sole is a corporation constituted by a single member, in a particular capacity, and that person's successors in the same capacity, in order to give them some legal benefit or advantage, particularly that of perpetuity, which a natural person could not have had. Examples are a religious officiant in that capacity, or The Crown in the Commonwealth realms. A corporation aggregate is a corporation constituted by more than one member.

• Municipal corporations (municipalities) are "creatures of statute". Other organizations may be created by statute as legal persons, including European economic interest groupings (EEIGs).

•  Unincorporated associations, that is aggregates of two or more persons, are treated as juridical persons in some jurisdictions but not others.

• Partnerships, an aggregate of two or more persons to carry on a business in common for profit and created by the agreement. Traditionally, partnerships did not have continuing legal personality, but many jurisdictions now treat them as having an independent legal personality.

•  Companies, a form of business association that carries on an industrial enterprise, are often corporations, although companies may take other forms, such as trade unions, unlimited companies, trusts, and funds. Limited liability companies—be they a private company limited by guarantee, private company limited by shares, or public limited company—are entities having certain characteristics of both a corporation and a partnership. Different types have a complex variety of advantages and disadvantages.

•  Sovereign states are legal persons.

• In the international legal system, various organizations possess legal personality. These include intergovernmental organizations (the United Nations, the Council of Europe) and some other international organizations (including the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a religious order).

•  The European Union (EU) has legal personality since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009. That the EU has legal personality is a prerequisite for the EU to join the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, in 2014, the EU decided not to be bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.

• Temples, in some legal systems, have separate legal personality.

• The Whanganui River was granted legal personality in March 2017 under New Zealand law because the Whanganui Māori tribe regard the river as their ancestor.

Not all organizations have a legal personality. For example, the board of directors of a corporation, legislature, or governmental agency typically are not legal persons in that they have no ability to exercise legal rights independent of the corporation or political body which they are a part of.

Visit again, this will be revised shortly.