CONCEPT OF JURAL RELATIONS

IN
HOHFELD’S THEORY
Submitted by-
Raunicka Sharma
Div-B PRN-18010224097

OF

Symbiosis Law School, Noida

Symbiosis International(Deemed University),
Pune

IN
August, 2018

Under the guidance of

Meera Mathew
 CERTIFICATE

The project entitled “ Concept of Jural Relations in Hohfeld’s Theory” submitted to the
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Jurisprudence as part of Internal assessment is based on
my original work carried out under the guidance of Mrs. Meera Mathew from . The research
work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree. The material borrowed from
other sources and incorporated in the project has been duly acknowledged. I understand that I
myself could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Signature of the candidate

Date:
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to sincerely thank Dr. (Prof.) C.J. Rawandale, Director, Symbiosis Law School,
NOIDA for devising such a curriculum that always enables us to use the grey matter present
in our brains.
I respect and heartily thank Meera Mathew for providing me an opportunity to work on this
project. It was a very educational experience for me with regards to the knowledge the
research provided me.
I would also like to thank her for the constant support and guidance she provided me
throughout the making of this project. I owe my deepest gratitude to her. 
 INDEX
1. Jurisprudential theory
2. Case study
 Case 1
 Case 2
3. Analysis of case with the theory
4. conclusion
Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld  was an American jurist. Hohfeld noticed that even respected
jurists conflate various meanings of the term right, therefore in order To eliminate ambiguity,
he defined these terms relative to one another, grouping them into four pairs of Jural
Opposites and four pairs of Jural Correlatives..

The most satisfying approach is to lay down various jural relations in a scheme of
“opposites” and “correlatives” and, then, to proceed with stating examples of their individual
scope and application in concrete cases. Hohfeld saw every jural relation as a relation
between two persons.
The vertical arrows couple jural correlatives, ’’two legal positions that entail each other’’12
whereas the diagonal arrows couple jural opposites, ’’two legal positions that deny each
other’’.
RIGHTS AND DUTIES
As a correlative, legal right always have a legal duty. example wherein X has a right against
Y that he shall stay off the X’s land. The invariable correlative thereof is comprised in the
fact that Y is under a duty towards X to stay off X’s land.

PRIVILEGE AND NO-RIGHT

A privilege as a jural relation means a bare negation of duties. Privileges are permissions to
act in a certain way without being responsible for the damage done to other people who,
simultaneously, are not in position to call in the authorities to prevent such action.

POWER AND LIABILITIES

Power is the ability to change a legal relationship liability is the possibility that one’s legal
relation will be changed when another person uses their power.

IMMUNITIES AND DISABILITIES

Immunity is state of being safe from modifications of one’s entitlements by another.63
Disability is a lack of power to change legal entitlements. For example, If A has an immunity
against B, B is under a disability with respect to exercising powers referring to entitlements
covered by the immunity.

CASE STUDY

KASTURI RALIA RAM JAIN Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (1965

AIR 1039)

FACTS
M/S Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain is a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian
Partnership Act dealing in bullion and other goods. Ralia Ram was going to Meerut to sell
gold, silver and other goods in the market. On the way some police officers of the state
seized gold from the appellant while exercising their statutory powers, but were not able to
keep it in a safe custody so the gold was not returned and a suit was filed claiming the value
of gold.
ISSUE
1. Whether the police officers in question were negligent in taking care of gold that was
seized from Ralia Ram.
2. Whether the respondent( the State of Uttar Pradesh) was liable to compensate the
appellant for the loss caused to it by negligence of public servants employed by the
respondent.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court held that power to arrest a person, to search, to seize the found property
is conferred on special officers by statute. Though the act was committed during the course of
employment but the claim against the state can’t be sustained because it was committed by
the police officers in exercise of delegated sovereign powers.
(1983) HCA 21; 158 CLR 1; 57 ALJR 450;46 ALR 625

COMMOMWEALTH Vs TASMANIA ((1983) HCA 21; 158 CLR 1; 57 ALJR

450;46 ALR 625

FACTS

In 1978, a proposal was made for the construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Franklin
River in Tasmania, Australia. The government of Tasmania rejected this, arguing that the
federal government acted without the necessary constitutional power in making these
regulations.

ISSUE
Whether the federal government had the power and if it worked within the scope of these
powers to make these regulations.

JUDGEMENT
The High Court held  that the external affairs power granted the federal government the
power to legislate to give effect to treaty obligations even where the operation of the
legislation is principally within Australia. However, on the specific facts, it was only held at a
four to three majority that the creation of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act
1983(WHPC)was a legitimate exercise of power .Crucially, section which prohibited the
adverse interference in World Heritage Areas without Federal Ministerial approval, was held
to be valid. the High Court provided that the legislation is valid under the external affairs
power if it is of “international concern” despite not relating specifically to any international
obligation on Australia’s behalf.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASES WITH THEORY

While describing the jural relations and making it easy for people and scholars to understand
Hohfeld’s made four pairs of Jural correlatives. He laid various relations in a scheme of
opposites and correlatives.
He identified jural correlatives as power-liability, immunity-disability,-right-immunity and
privilege-no right and jural opposites as liability-immunity, power-disability, duty-privilege
and right and no right.
In case of kasturilal vs State of Uttar Pradesh the police officers had the power which was
conferred to them by the statute and the state therefore did not hold any liability towards the
appellant. It was a case of jural opposites between power and disability.
On the other hand, in case of Commonwealth vs Tasmania it deals with the power, privilege
and rights that the state had in case of construction of dam on the river.

CONCLUSION
According to Hohfeld, there are eight fundamental legal conceptions. Those fundamental
legal conceptions are sui generis. The most satisfying approach is to lay down various
relations in a scheme of opposites and correlatives, and of then, to proceed with stating
examples of their individual and scope application in concrete cases. Hohfeld saw every Jural
relation as a relation between two persons.

The discussion on Hohfeld’s scheme of jural relations has turned out to be one of the most
complex discussions in the history of legal analysis. Hohfeld himself stressed “the great
practical importance of a clear appreciation of the distinctions and discriminations set forth”.
The eight proposed terms-rights and duties, privileges and no-right, powers and liabilities,
immunities and disabilities represent “the lowest common denominators of the law” to which
all “legal quantities” may be reduced.70 They enable “discovering essential similarities and
illuminating analogies in the midst of what appears superficially to be infinite and hopeless
variety....to discern common principles of justice and policy.....to use as persuasive
authorities judicial precedents that might otherwise seem altogether irrelevant”.
Hohfeld put forth a scheme of jural relations in which legal positions are connected with each
other by purely logical relations of entailment and negation. Hohfeld’s goal was to provide a
precise analyse of legal rights and thus prevent confusions arising from "inadequacy and
ambiguity of terminology” that refers to the use of rights, liberties and powers etc. in practice.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 https://www.scribd.com
 www.thomasalspaugh.org
 https://indiankanoon.org
 wikipedia