LEGAL PERSONS

LEGAL STATUS OF THE LOWER ANIMALS

⦿ Beasts are not persons -neither natural nor legal
⦿ They are things – objects of legal rights and
duties
⦿ Beasts like men are capable of acts and possess
interests
⦿ Earlier - “…………then the ox shall be surely
stoned and his flesh shall not be eaten”
⦿ Yet their acts are neither lawful nor unlawful
⦿ Distress damage feasant
⦿ Cattle Trespass Act
⦿ Delhi Municipal Corporation Act
⦿ Cruelty to animals is a criminal offence
⦿ A wrong to the owner or to the society of
mankind but no wrong to the beast
⦿ No animal can be the owner of any property,
even through the medium of a human trustee
⦿ Trust for the benefit of a particular class of
animals as opposed to one for individual animal
is valid and enforceable as a public and
charitable trust
⦿ Duty towards animals are conceived by the law
as duties towards the society itself
⦿ Community has a rightful interest legally
recognised in the well being of the dumb
animals which belong to it
⦿ Where interests of animals and men conflict the
latter are preferred
⦿ Birds have a fundamental right to fly
⦿ Lavery
⦿ Stanley
RIVERS
⦿ Mohd Salim v State of Uttarakhand
⦿ Para 19 – “Rivers Ganga and Yamuna, all their
tributaries, streams, every natural water flowing
with flow continuously and intermittently of these
rivers, as juristic/legal persons/living entities having
the status of legal persons with all corresponding
rights, duties and liabilities of a living person in order
to preserve and conserve the rivers”
⦿ Constitute Ganga Management Board
⦿ Appointed 2 persons as loco parentis as the human
face to protect, conserve and preserve the rivers
⦿ River Boards Act
⦿ Supreme Court stayed the operation of the decision
 IDOL
⦿ A juristic person
⦿ Can hold property
⦿ Priest or any person authorised on that behalf
acts as guardian
⦿ Yogendra Nath Naskar v. Commr of IT – Supreme
Court held that it is a juristic person and also
liable to pay tax – it is assessed as an individual
– if it can hold property it can be taxed too
⦿ A Mosque is not a juristic person
 PRAMATHANATH MULLICK V.
PRADYUMNA KUMAR MULLICK
⦿ This case is in reference to the control and
worship of a Hindu Idol.
⦿ Mutty Lal Mullick installed three hindu idols
which became the objects of pious worship of his
family.
⦿ He died in 1846, leaving behind his wife,
Rangamouni and 2 year old adopted son Jadulal.
⦿ Shortly before his death, he left a will stating that
his widow should be the proprietor and attorney
for the protection of his estate until his adopted
son attains the age of 20 years.
⦿ Upon the adopted son attaining twenty the widow
was to "make over the whole of the property to
him fully and he will in a like manner protect the
whole of the property and effectuate the Kreah
Karmas, or religious acts and ceremonies.“
⦿ In 1881 Jadulal enlarged the old family
dwelling-house containing the Thakurbari in
which the household gods had resided and were
⦿ In 1888 he executed a deed of trust providing
particular premises for the location and worship
of the deities in the puja dalan
⦿ In the year 1891 Ranganmoni, the widow of Mutty
Lal Mullick, died, making an endowment of 1
lakh Rupees to the family idol for the daily and
periodical worship of the idol.
⦿ In the year 1894 Jadulal died leaving behind three
sons and four daughters. The estate being large, a
suit for partition ensued among the brothers.
⦿ The questions of partition arose with respect to
Jadulal’s will and Ranganmouni’s endowment.
⦿ With regard to the former it was declared that the
three sons, as Jadulal's heirs, were entitled to the
residue of the father's estate (not including the
property vested in the idol) in three equal shares
⦿ The respondent sons were allotted a house each
and the appellant son was given amount as
necessary to set up his own resident when
required.
⦿ In a subsequent part of the award various turns of
worship were given to the sons in order. As to the
Thakurbari, or puja dalan, plans were referred to,
and it was declared to be the joint property of the
three sons. Prohibition was made against the two
sons vested in the adjoining properties raising
any structure or building of any kind which might
interfere with the joint property.
⦿ With regard to Ranganmoni's estate and
endowment, a suit was brought in 1904, it was
decreed that a scheme should be framed for
carrying on the varied trusts of the lady's will and,
subject to provision being made, her estate
should be divided into three equal shares.
⦿ The second son (Appellant) established his
residence in 1911, thereby removing the idols to
the thakurbari of his house for ceremonies and
religious festivals .
⦿ Such tranfers were objected by the respondent
brothers as standing in disregard of their father’s
deed of trust and opposing the interests of the
RIGHTS & INTERESTS OF
THE IDOL
⦿ The person founding a deity and becoming
responsible for these duties is de facto and in Common
parlance called Shebait. This responsibility is, of
course, maintained by a pious Hindu, either by the
personal performance of the religious rites or by the
employment of a Brahmin priest to do so on his
behalf.
⦿ The interest of the idol is that of pious worship which
under no circumstance can be deprived
⦿ The duties of piety from the time of the consecration
of the idol are duties to something existing
⦿ The position and rights of the deity in regard to its
preservation, its maintenance and the services to be
performed, be in the charge of a human being.
Accordingly he is the Shebait custodian of the idol and
manager of its estate.
⦿ However, it cannot be said that the destruction,
degradation or injury are within the power of their
custodian for the time being.
⦿ In the above case, the dedication was not with
respect to the property but of the real estate in
trust of the property.
⦿ The will of the idol is represented by the
guardian (shebait). An idol acting through its
guardian can therefore conduct worship in its
own way and at its own place provided the
guardian is not acting inconsistently with the
proper and reverent conduct of the worship of
its members.
⦿ Therefore, Jadulal’s right is not absolute,
because the will of the idol in respect to the
location and worship must be respected. If, in
the course of a proper and unassailable
administration of the worship of the idol by the
Shebait, it be thought that a family idol should
change its location the will of the idol itself,
expressed through his guardian, must be given
effect to.
⦿ Is idol a person/ property or a person owning
property?
◼ Founded upon religious customs of Hindus
◼ Can sue and be sued (tax/ contracts)
◼ Wishes of idol – Shebait/ social interests
⦿ Can right of worship be partitioned?
⦿ Relationship between the shebait and the idol
◼ Master servant?
◼ Trustee and beneficiary? Shebait is the manager of
its estate
◼ Parent and minor child?
⦿ Comparison with corporation
JUDGEMENT
⦿ Idol is not a chattel or a property
⦿ Dedication of real estate to idol
⦿ Idol has a will of its own that must be
respected
⦿ Idols will is expressed by shebait
⦿ Shebait by analogy, is the manager of the
estate of an infant heir
⦿ Provide Idol with a Thakurbari of the same or
of larger value
 🡽
ROBOSAPIENS AND LIABILITY
 Date of Birth: April 19, 2015

Place of Birth: Hanson Robotics,

Hong Kong

Nationality: Saudi Arabia

The first non-human to be named

Innovation Champion by UNDP
Sophi
a
CHATGPT AS AUTHOR
⦿ Worlds first robot lawyer ROSS
hired by US law firm – 2016

⦿ to assist its various teams in

legal research and notify users
of new court decisions that can
affect a case
⦿ The robot called ‘ROSS’ is built
upon Watson, IBM’s cognitive
computer. With the support of
Watson’s cognitive computing
and natural language
processing capabilities,
lawyers can ask ROSS their
research question and the
robot reads through the law,
gathers evidence, draws
inferences and returns highly
relevant, evidence-based
answers.
POINT OF INQUIRY

Where will legal liability lie

Can Persons/ machines with
in cases of wrongful acts
Artificial Intelligence be
done by Persons/ machines
granted legal personhood?
with Artificial Intelligence
• Citizenship • Liability and the futility
• Rights and duties in their of punishments
interactions with
community
ROBOTS & PAI
⦿ Manufactured product or property OR persons
⦿ They are programmed tools
⦿ Capability of rights and duties – same as
chimpanzee
⦿ Malfunction
◼ Manufacturer or user responsible
⦿ Insurance
⦿ Intentionality, desires and interests
Whether it can act Whether it can have
as trustee personhood status
the reasonability PAI is not a human;
objection and the the missing-something
judgment objection argument; and
a PAI ought to be property
 LEGAL PERSONS
• Corporations
◼ Corporations aggregate – incorporated group of
coexisting persons – company, municipal corporation
◼ Corporations sole – incorporated series of successive
persons – only one member at a time – Post Master
General, Attorney General
• Institutions (church, hospital – Universitas
Personarum)
• Corpus is some fund or estate devoted to some
special use (law personalizes the body of
persons who administer it – Universitas
bonorum)
THEORIES OF PERSONALITY

• Purpose Theory
• Brinz later developed by Barker
• Assumes persons can only be natural and not
juristic
• They are ‘subjectless properties’ designed for
certain purposes
• To Duguit purpose of law is social solidarity
• The question is always whether a given group
is pursuing a purpose which confirms to social
solidarity
• Theory of Enterprise Entity
• Based on the reality of the underlying enterprise
• Approval by law of the corporate form establishes
a prima facie case that assets activities and
responsibilities of the corporation are a part of
the enterprise
• If not then the extent of the responsibility is
determined by the underling enterprise
• The theory explains the attitude of law towards
unincorporated associations
• The theory is a utilitarian one
• The Fiction Theory
• Salmond and Holland
• Personality is attached to groups and
institutions by pure legal fiction and this
personality is different from the individual
beings
• Idol or a group of persons are persons because
it is so imagined by fiction of law
• The Realist Theory
• Gierke
• The group or the institution has an existence
beyond the aggregate of the individualities of the
persons forming it
• A corporation has a real existence
• It has a corporate will that manifests itself
through the actions of its agents
• Maitland and Pollock develop the theory to state
that it is a living organism and a real person with
body and members and a will of its own
• The Concession Theory
• Savigny
• Sovereign and the states are the only real
entities
• All intermediate groups cannot claim
recognition as persons
• Corporate personality arises only as a result of
state acts or by concessions granted by the
state
• Bracket theory or The Symbolist Theory
• Paton
• Regards members of the corporations as the
bearers of rights and as beings bound by the
duties which are for convenience referred to
as persons
• A B and C form a company – it is inconvenient
to refer to them as such – so a bracket is put
around them and a name given – but in order
to understand the real position we must
remove the bracket
 LIFTING CORPORATE VEIL
⦿ Salomon v. Salomon – essential characteristic of
a corporation is that it has a personality
distinct from its members
⦿ Corporate body is distinct from the members
forming it
⦿ People’s Pleasure Park v. Rohleder – a
restrictive covenant that title of land should
not pass to a a coloured person operated to
prevent transfer to a corporation of which all
members were negroes – held transfer valid as
corporation distinct from its members
⦿ Diamler Co v. Continental Tyre Co.- House of
Lords lifted the veil to find that the company
was an enemy company

⦿ In US v. Lehigh Valley Rail Road Co – lifted the

veil to find that the Company had attempted to
evade a statute
 CIVIL LIABILITY OF A CORPORATION
⦿ Generally only those acts of the agent are
imputed to the principal which are within the
limits of agents authority
⦿ But the legal person in a corporation is
incapable of conferring authority
⦿ The authority of the agent is limited by the
◼ Will of the people who are for that purpose
identified as the corporation
◼ The law itself
⦿ Law itself – those things that are incidental to
the fulfillment of the purposes for which the
law created it
⦿ A company registered under the Companies Act
must set forth its purpose and beyond this they
cant act even with the unanimous consent of
the shareholders
CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF A CORPORATION
⦿ Corporation has no will
⦿ But the law does regard certain human beings as
the equivalent of the corporation for certain
purposes
⦿ Corporation can be held liable for wrongful acts
⦿ Involving malice, fraud, libel, malicious
prosecution or deceit