The "Dilemma" of "Constructive Possession" vs "Domicile"!!!
property ailet beginner doubtYaar samajh nahi aaya, can someone please help?! In Property Law, I'm totally confused between constructive possession and domicile. Both sound similar but are totally unrelated concepts. Constructive possession, as per Section 24 of the TPA, is when someone is deemed to be in possession of a property even if they don't physically occupy it. But then comes domicile, which is the person's actual abode or home. Why is it that someone can have a domicile in one place but have a property in another with constructive possession? I mean, I know the definitions, but how do these concepts apply in real life? For example, if I leave my house in Delhi but have a flat in Mumbai, which one is my domicile and which one is constructively possessed? I'm getting my concepts all mixed up! Please help me out, friends!
Accha, friends! Constructive possession and domicile are two distinct concepts in our civil law, nahi? Constructive possession implies control or exercise of authority over a property, even though physical possession is not present. Domicile, on the other hand, refers to a person's permanent home or residence. These concepts often get confusing, but knowing the difference is crucial for property laws. For example, a person may have constructive possession of a property, but not necessarily be its domicile.