Possession is a vague term. Possession appears much more device of convenience to facilitate policy of law. The following observation will clarify the concept of law in reference to things in possession:

(a) Things which are lying loose on the land and are not in the knowledge of the owner of the land are deemed in possession of first finder and he has better title than the owner of the land.

Bridges Vs. Hawkesworth (1851) 15 Jun 1079:

In this case the plaintiff found a parcel of bank notes lying on the floor of the shop. The court held, founder of the parcel had the better title than that of the owner of the shop, against the whole world except the real owner. Possession over the bank notes was acquired first by finder, animus was lacking in shopkeeper, as he was not aware about the existence of the bank notes at the premises of his shop.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Hannah Vs Peel (1945):

In this case a soldier stayed in the house which was purchased by somebody else. Soldier found a brooch lying on the top of the window frame. Owner of the house took that brooch and sold it. It was held by the court that the soldier had much better title than the owner as the owner had no knowledge about the existence of the thing.

(b) An owner/occupier of a land enjoys better title than the finder of the goods in reference to the object under or attached to the land, whether he knows about its existence on the land or not.

In South Staffordshire Water Works Co. Vs. Sharman (1896) 2Z.B.44:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In this case the Plaintiff company owned a pool and employed defendant to clean the pool. Defendant found two gold rings in it and denied to hand it over to Plaintiff Company . The plaintiff company held entitled to possession of the ring. Lord Russel G.J. observed, “Where a person has possession, of a house or land, with a manifest intention to exercise control over it and the thing which may be upon or in it, then if something is found on the land whether by an employee of the owner or by a stranger, the presump­tion is that the possession of that thing is in the owner of the locus in quo.”

Elwass Vs. Brigg Gas Co. (1886), 33 Ch:

D.562 In this case the defendant took on lease land belonging to the plaintiff. While digging land, defendant found a prehistoric boat- six feet below the surface. It was held that the land lord being in lawful possession of land, was in possession of not only of the surface but everything that lay down to the centre of the earth.

(c) So far cases of larceny are concerned; law gives more marks to possession de jure than possession de facto. Possession is deemed with the legal possessor when possession is lost without the knowledge of the person legally entitled to it.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Cartwright Vs Green (1808) 7 R.R. 99:

In this case a bureau was delivered to carpenter, and there was money in the secret drawer of the bureau. Carpenter appropriated the money. It was held by the court that animus was lacking in the carpenter therefore money was not in his possession until he found it therefore he was held guilty. Court followed the same principle in Merry Vs. Green (1843).

R. Vs. Ash well (1885),16 B.D.190:

In this case A delivered B a guinea, both thinking it to be shilling. When B came to know, it was a guinea he appropriated it. B found guilty of larceny. The court gives the reason, “A man has not possession of that, of the existence of which he is unaware”.