Skip to main content

Laws related to co-ownership of a joint property

 What does Co-ownership of property mean?

Co-ownership or joint ownership means when two or more persons hold title to the same property. Co-owners of a property mean all the owners of that particulare property. Any co-owner can transfer his/her personal share in such property to a co-owner or even a stranger which results in that transferee stepping into the shoes of the co-owner. A co-owner generally has the right to possession, right to use and even dispose off the property.  


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue

 


What are the types of co-ownership?

There are a few types of co-ownerships. These have been explained below:


Tenants in Common: When two or more people buy a property but do not specifically mention the share that each has in the property, a 'tenancy-in-common' is said to exist. All the co-owners can use the entire property and every co-owner is deemed to be having an equal share in the property. Each tnenant-in-common has a separate fractional interest in the property. However, each tenant-in-common may possess and use the entire property. Each tenant-in-common can freely transfer his/her interest in such property. Tenants-in-common dont have the right of survivorship. Hence, if one dies, his/her interest passes by way of Will or through laws of intestacy to another individual who can then become a tenant-in-common, along with the surviving co-owners. 


Joint Tenancy: Joint tenancy is a form of co-ownership where the property is owned by two or more persons at the same time in equal shares. This type of tenancy provides rights to ownership of the property for the co-owners who outlive other co-owners. Joint tenancy entails the right of survivorship. If one such co-owner dies, it is immediately passed on to the surviving/other joint tenants. All the joint tenants have a single unified interest in the whole property. Joint tenancy must have an undivided interests in the entire property, and not divided interests in separate parts. A joint tenancy can be created by a Will or a Deed. Each joint tenantshould have estates of the same type and duration as well. 


Tenancy by entirety: This is a special form of joint tenancy when the joint tenants are namely the husband and wife -- with each owning one-half. To exist, tenancy by entirety requires the two co-owners to be married i.e. husband and wife. Under this type of co-ownership, no one spouse is allowed to convey or transfer his/her interest to a 3rd person. However, the husband or the wife can convey his/her share to their spouse. A tenancy by entirity can only be terminated by way of divorce, death or a mutual agreement between the husband and wife. Such terminated tenancy becomes tenancy in common. 


Consult: Top Property Lawyers in India

 


What are laws related to transfer of property by a co-owner?

Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 deals with transfer by a co-owner and it also deals with the rights of a transferee in this type of a transaction.


According to this Act, every joint or co-owner has a proprietary right on the entire property. Hence, any sale has to be done with the consent of all co-owners involved. If, however, there are specific conditions in the agreement that gives co-owners exclusive rights to certain parts/portions of the property, a co-owner can sell his portion to whom he chooses.


 

What are the rights of a co-owner?

A co-owner is entitled to three essentials of ownership:


Right to possession


Right to use


Right to dispose of his share of the property if it is clearly stated, in the deed.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue

 


Why is co-ownership better?

If you are a married couple, co-owning a house with your spouse has many benefits. Both can get tax benefits. In case of a joint ownership, the husband, as well as the wife individually, will be able to claim deductions under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act. In order to understand why co-ownership is better, you must take the help of a good property lawyer, who will be able to guide you in the right direction after understanding the facts and circumstances of your case. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree