Other approaches can be classified in different ways, but there is a significant gap between those who believe that rights are designated as practical reasons by their great weight and those who believe that rights are nothing special in this regard, but rather must be analyzed in duties, permits, powers, etc. or a combination of these. perhaps with the addition of other conditions. According to Dean Roscoe Pound, Pound states that legal rights mean; In general, this means that the act that is legally permissible is called a legal claim or that the act that is recognized or protected by the state is called a legal claim. The definition results from the number of lawyers such as Holland, Austin, Pollock. Private rights are associated with individuals or individuals. Example: A contract between two people gives them private rights. ➢ Content or subject matter of legal claim: The subject matter of the legal claim is an essential element. This is a legal issue; it is about doing something or not doing certain actions or abstaining; It obliges a person to abstain or act on behalf of a person with legal rights. Example: Y bought a van for 20,000 rupees. Here, Y is the subject of the law.
Subject (Y) has legal rights and may exclude other persons. An acquired right creates a direct interest. It is a right in respect of which all the events necessary for the complete transfer to the owner have occurred. In the case of a conditional right, only some of the events necessary to transfer the right to the conditional rightholder occurred. ➢ Fundamental duties and legal duties: Fundamental duties are duties imposed on citizens in accordance with their country and the Constitution, while legal duties are obligations imposed by laws and regulations. Many legal rights must be accompanied by a condition of possession or exercise. This in itself does not distinguish legal rights from many moral rights. Just as you are only entitled to legal compensation for bodily injury if you have been attacked, you are only entitled to an excuse to be offended if you have been offended. But legal rights can lead to more complicated situations that rarely occur in morality. The ancillary right is the resale or accessory right.
They are not important, but they are supposed to correspond to the fundamental right. The first question is whether property rights, and thus the notion of property, are essentially legal in nature or whether they are more general social phenomena that are simply recognized and legally protected in all modern societies. According to Bentham (1843)“. There is no natural property. Property is entirely the creature of the law. Bentham`s argument is essentially that what we mean by property is the security of expecting to keep, sell, use, etc. objects, and only the law can guarantee such security. Mr. Allen attempted to mix and reconcile these two theories by pointing out that the essence of a statutory right does not appear to be the statutory power per se, but the statutory power to realize an interest. Therefore, a sound theory would consider both will and interest as an essential part of the legal claim.
Rights in the general sense mean different things, but they are generally understood as the standard of actions that are allowed in a particular area. As a legal term, it refers to the legally permissible standard of conduct. Such lawful action of the people is called their legal right. Legal law must be distinguished from moral right or natural law. Legal rights are legally recognized and protected interests. The violation of this interest is a violation of the law and its compliance is a legal obligation. Moral law or natural law refers to interests recognized and protected by natural justice. To offend this interest would be morally wrong and respectful, because it is a sense of moral duty.
Property rights are alienable, while personality rights are not alienable. There is an inheritance factor in property rights that does not exist in the latter. Property rights are more static than personal rights. In Daniel v. State[1], the Madras High Court explained the main contributions of the legal action as follows: According to his theory, „rights are an inherent attribute of the human will“. The purpose of the law is to allow for the expression of free will. The object is derived from the human will. We can conclude that rights and obligations coexist. In Salmond`s words, it can be said that no right exists without the corresponding right.
Every duty of the person must be a duty to a person who has the right and, conversely, every right must be directed against certain persons to whom a duty is imposed. First, should rights be analyzed only in terms of duties to others (with another condition), or should we also include other concepts such as permission, power, and immunity? Hohfeld believed that, strictly speaking, something was a legal claim only if it was consistent with an obligation to others, but he argued that the use of the law was often confusing because the reference really referred to one of the other terms. Thus, the law also sometimes said that X had a right if (1) he had A`s permission, (2) he had A`s legal authority, (3) Y had no legal authority to influence him.
