1. Discuss the Salient features of the Sociological School of Jurisprudence?

OR Salient features of the

Sociological School of Jurisprudence?
Introduction: The sociological school is one of the important branches of law. It comes after the Analytical school
and Historical school. Its seeds were found in the historical school. Duguit, Roscopound and Camta are the
supporters of this school. This school is related with society. According to this school law is numerator of society.
Law and society both are the two sides of the same coin, one cannot exist without the other. If there is law there
should be society and if there is society there should be law. Law is very necessary for regulating the society. Many
writers like Duguit, Roscopound and Inhering gave these views in the sociological school.

The theory of Duguit under sociological school is a social solidarity. Scocial solidarity means the greatness of
society. Duguit said that there are mainly 2 types of needs of the society: 1.Common Needs 2. Adverse Needs.
1. Common Needs:- Which are fulfilled by mutual assistance.
2. Adverse Needs:- Which are fulfilled by the exchange of services. No one can live without the help of other.
Even a state cannot exist without the help of other state. One cannot produce all things required for him. So he
has to depend upon others. The dependency is called social solidarity. For this purpose the division of labour is
necessary. Division of labour will fulfill all requirements for the society. This philosophy or views is called social
solidarity.
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF DUGUIT THEORY OF LAW
1.Mutual Inter dependence : In society all persons are depending upon each other. Individual cannot fulfill his
ambitions alone. 2. No difference between state & society: State and society are a group of persons. Main purpose
of the society is to save the people. This responsibility is also lies upon the state. So state does not have a special
status or above status from people. State should make law for the welfare of the people. 3. Sovereign and will of
people: Sovereign is a politically superior person. Duguit says that sovereign is not superior to people. The
sovereign of a state lives in people or in the will of people.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC & PRIVATE LAW
Duguit says that there is no difference between public law and private law because the aim of both the law is to
develop the social solidarity. Pubic law and private law are meant for people. Public right and private right or
people have only duties and not any right. There is no difference between public right and private right. According
to Duguit there is only one right that is to serve the people. It means person have only duties not rights.
CRITICISM OF DUGUIT’S THEORY
1. The theory of social solidarity is vague: This theory is not clear for a common person. One cannot gain anything
from this theory so this is vague theory. 2. Who will decide social solidarity: Duguit has not given the authority that
who will explain the solidarity because Duguit did not recognize sovereignty. We can imagine that Judge will
explain the standard of social solidarity. But there are no guidelines for the Judgess. 3. Public law and Private law
are not same: There must be an authority which passes the law. In Duguit theory there is no place for such
authority. 4. Public right and Private right are also not same: The right of society is public right and the right of
common people is private right. 5. Custom ignored: Custom is the base of any law but Duguit ignore these
customs. In this way the theory of Duguit is not suitably in modern times.
CONCLUSION
No doubt Duguit was a sociologist because he gave a lot of development to society. The social solidarity itself
contains the welfare of the people. Duguit said that law should be according to the social solidarity. Here he
discards natural principal but the theory of the social solidarity itself is based upon natural law, which demands
that the people should served properly according to their needs. In this way Duguit put out the natural law
principal from the door and accepted through the window. However the contribution of Duguit is accepted by
many writers and some of them also adopted this theory.

Define Ownership. Discuss the various kinds of ownership. Distinguish between possession and ownership.
INTRODUCTION: Ownership is linked with possession. Possession is the first stage of ownership. It means for
ownership possession is necessary. Possession and ownership both are two sides of the same coin and one cannot
exist without the other. Ownership gives the full right over the thing. Ownership is ultimate and final right for
disposing the property. It means to transfer that property in any way. Ownership is a relationship between the
person and the thing. For ownership there must be a thing and the owner of thing. The concept of ownership was
absent in the ancient society. There was also no concept of possession too. Slowly and slowly as the society
developed the concept of possession also developed. The idea of ownership came into existence. So this way
after the progress of the concept of ownership the person became the full owner of his property.
DEFINITION: Before to define the ownership we have to discuss the various kinds of law:
Roman Law: As evident from history that the Roman Law was the first law in the world. It is considered the ancient
law. All concepts of law begin from the period of Roman society. Under the Roman Law the concept of ownership
is defined in the form of dominion that means to have the right control of a thing. The concept of ownership
developed in the form of a right over the thing. Dominion is distinguished from possession. Possession means to
have possession over a thing but dominos means to have a right over the thing.
Hindu Law: Hindu Law is also considered as the most ancient law in the world. In Hindu law the concept of
ownership also has been discussed. In Hindu Law ownership is said as, “According to Hindu Law ownership means
a relationship between person and a thing. Person is called owner and a thing is called property. Means a property
which is in the control of a person is his property.
VIEWS OF MODERN & WESTERN JURISTS
The western jurists like Austin, Holland and Salmond defined the concept of ownership.
According to Austin: Ownership is the relationship which exists in between the person and the thing. This
definition resembles with the definition under Hindu Law. Austin says that in ownership a person has the
following relations with the thing.
1. Indefinite Use: It means to use that thing in any way whether to use it for agriculture or for industry, residence
but there is a restriction that one cannot use one’s property in such a way which destructive in the living of others.
2. Un-restricted power of dispose: Means to transfer that thing or property according to his choice. He can sale or
to mortgage even to give on lease or gift to anybody. But under art.19(2) of the Constitution reasonable
restrictions can be imposed by the Govt., in the interest of public policies.
3. Un-limited duration of time: means the right of transfer of his property will remain always in the name of owner.
After his death it will go to his heirs so there is no time limit.
4. Domination: It means to have control over the thing. For this purpose both elements of possession corpus and
animus should be there. If the conditions are there between person and the thing and then the person is owner of
that thing.
According to Holland: He defined the ownership as a plenary control of a person over a thing. The definition also
contains the following conditions: 1. Possession 2. Enjoyment 3. Disposal.
According to Salmond: Salmond defines ownership as a relationship between person and the right. Right means
to have a thing under possession. Thing always represents physical objects. But right always represents a thing
which is not in physical existence like copy right and allowances are always things which are called property and
which are not in physical existence. Salmond has included all those rights which are property in the concept of
ownership. In view of the above it is learnt that Austin and Holland definitions are not complete. But salmond is
completely perfect in his definition.
KINDS OF OWNERSHIP
There are various kinds of ownership which are as under:
1. Corporal and Incorporeal ownership: Corporeal and incorporeal ownership also called material and immaterial
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 copyright a patent or
a trade mark is incorporeal ownership.
2. Sole and co-ownership: The general principal of ownership is that vested in one person only. But some times it
vested in many persons in other words two or more person have the right of ownership. If only one person have
right of ownership that known as sole ownership and where two or more persons have the right of ownership then
know as co-ownership.
3. 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 ownership is yet imperfect.
4. Absolute and Limited ownership: means owner is one in whom are vested all the rights over a thing to the
exclusion of all or when a person has an absolute right over his property known as absolute ownership.
When there are limitations on the user duration or disposal of rights of ownership the ownership is limited
ownership.
5. Legal and Equitable ownership: Legal ownership is that which has its origin in the rules of common law.
Equitable ownership is that which proceeds from the rules of equity. Legal right may be enforced in rem but
equitable rights are enforced in personam.
CONCLUSION
The ownership is a relationship between person and the right. These rights include the right of possession
enjoyment and disposal of the property. If all conditions are there then it is called Ownership.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POSSESSION & OWNERSHIP

POSSESSION
1. Possession is a primary stage of ownership which
is in fact.
2. Possession does not give title in the property
defacto exercise of a claims
3. Possession is a fact.
4. Possession tends to become ownership.
5. Possession dominion corpus and animus are
necessary.
6. Transfer of possession is comparatively easier.
7. Possession is nine points of law.
OWNERSHIP
1. Ownership is in right.
2. While in ownership it gives title in the property dejure
recognisation.
3. Ownership is a right and superior to possession.
4. Ownership tends to realize itself in to possession.
5. Ownership they are not necessary because law gives full
rights.
6. Ownership most of the cases involves a technical process
i.e. conveyance deed etc.
7. Ownership always tries to realize itself in possession i.e.
complete thing.