Source: https://chambersofnitinchopra.wordpress.com/tag/property/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:38:33+00:00

Document:
The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by rent control laws has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. Indeed, ownership is a relative term, the import whereof depends on the context in which it is used. In rent control legislation, the landlord can be said to be the owner if he is entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for and on behalf of someone else to evict the tenant and then to retain control, hold and use the premises for himself. What may suffice and hold good as proof of ownership in Landlord-tenant litigation probably may or may not be enough to successfully sustain a claim for ownership in a title suit. Boorugu Mahadev and Sons v. Sirigiri Narasing Rao, (2016) 3 SCC 343.
“Ownership” denotes the relation between a person and an object forming the subject matter of his ownership. It consists in a complex of rights, all of which are rights in rem, being good against all the world and not merely against specific persons” (Salmon on Jurisprudence, 12th Ed.). There are various rights or incidents of ownership all of which need not necessarily be present in every case. They may include a right to possess, use and enjoy the thing owned, and a right to consume, destroy or alienate it. Such a right may be indeterminate in duration and residuary in character. A person has a right to possess the thing which he owns, even when he is not in possession, but only retains a reversionary interest, i.e., a right to repossess the thing on the termination of a certain period or on the happening of a certain event. Suneel Galgotia v. State of U.P., 2016 (92) ACC 40.
A reading of the definition of ‘criminal intimidation’ would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation or property of the person threatened or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient. Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423.
Probate of a Will – Not Mandatory In Respect of Properties Situate In State of U.P.
Probate of a will is not necessary outside the presidency towns of Bengal, Bombay and Madras as has been held in Bhaiya Ji v. Jageshwar Dayal Bajpai, AIR 1978 All 268 and Smt. Pitmo v. Shyam Singh, 1978 (4) ALR 173. The said decisions hold that a probate is not required to be obtained by a Hindu in respect of a Will regarding immovable properties in territories other than Bengal, Bombay and Madras. Thus, probate of will is not mandatory in respect of a Will concerning properties situate in the State of U.P. Ramjas (Dead) through LRs v. Smt. Sunder Devi (Dead) and another, 2014 (125) RD 376.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.