The Title And Ownership

Title is the legal way of saying you own a right to something .For real estate purposes, title refers to Ownership of the property, meaning that you have the rights to use that property .title also means that you can transfer or portion that you can transfer that interest or portion that you own to others. And when you have ownership then you have only ownership and when you have title then you have ownership as well as title. Title can transfer person to person.

I. Introduction
Lawful Owner-Entity that has an enforceable case or title to an advantage or property, and is perceived in that capacity by law. For instance, a bank is the legitimate proprietor of a property (sold as a security for instalment of a credit) by a borrower who is its lawful holder and holds just the privilege of recovery in.
This idea has been talked about by the majority of the essayists before that of ownership. In any case, it isn't the correct technique. The possibility of ownership started things out in the psyches of individuals and it was later on that the possibility of proprietorship appeared.
Proprietorship is a complex juristic idea which has its cause in the Ancient Roman Law. In

Roman law proprietorship and ownership were separately named as dominium and possessio. The term dominium indicates supreme appropriate to a thing while ownership suggested just physical command over it. They gave more significance to proprietorship in light of the fact that as they would see it is progressively imperative to have total directly over a thing than to have physical power over it.

In English law the idea of proprietorship grew a lot later than ownership. The prior law offered significance to ownership on the misguided judgment that ownership incorporates inside its proprietorship too. Holds worth saw that the English law acknowledged the idea of proprietorship as a flat out directly through progressive the slow improvement in the law of ownership.

The idea of possession comprises of various cases, for example, freedom, power and invulnerability with respect to the thing claimed. Proprietorship is therefore a whole of ownership, mien and demolition which incorporates the privilege to appreciate property by the proprietor. The proprietor needs to one next to the other comply with the principles and guideline of the nation.

Definition of Ownership

Jurists have defined ownership in different ways. All of them accept the right of ownership as the complete or supreme right that can be exercised over anything. Thus, according to Hibbert ownership includes four kinds of rights within itself.
1. Right to use a thing
2. Right to exclude others from using the thing
3. Disposing of the thing
4. Right to destroy it.

Austin’s definition:

Austin defined ownership as “a right indefinite in point of user, unrestricted in point of disposition, and unlimited in point of duration over a determinate thing.” The theoretical concept of ‘ownership’, therefore, appears to be that a person can be considered to be owner if he has absolute dominion over it in all respects and is capable of transferring such ownership.

Hence, according to Austin, the three attributes of ownership are:-
(a) indefinite uses
(b) unrestricted disposition and
(c) unlimited duration.

1. Indefinite User:
By the privilege of uncertain client Austin implies that the proprietor of the thing is allowed to utilize or abuse the thing in a manner he enjoys. The pawned of a land may utilize it for strolling, for structure house or for planting, etc. Anyway Austin was sufficiently careful to utilize the expression "inconclusive". He didn't utilize the thing claimed shame way he loves. His utilization if the thing is moulded by necessities or confinements forced by the law. The claimed must not utilize the things possessed as to harm the privilege of others. The rule is the establishment of the outstanding saying 'see uteri taro us aileron non leads' the significance of the proverbs is that to utilize your very own property s not to harm your neighbour’s correct. Again the utilization of property might be confined wilfully for example
town arranging act, ghetto freedom act, 1955 and so forth.

2. Unrestricted Disposition:
What Austin implies by unrestricted disposition is that the power of disposition of the pawner is unhampered by law meaning thereby that he is absolutely free to dispose it to remove it to anyone This is incorrect. In case of lease of thousand years, servitudes and restricted, covenants, plenary control of a property is not possible. Moreover, in the law of the some of the western countries there is rule re relegitima portis which means that the person cannot dispose of his entire property. He has to keep a certain portion of the property for the members of his family. Under mohamdan law a similar rule prevails namely a person cannot dispose and delaying creditors would be set aside. As under Hindu law government by mitakashara law can’t alienate ancestral immovable property without the consent of other co perceners except for legal necessity.

3. Unlimited Duration:
It is incorrect since almost under every legal system the state possesses the power to take over the property of any person in public interest.
The abolition of Zamindari system India , the abolition of privy purses, nationalization of Bank etc. are some example of the fact that the ownership can be cut short by the state for public purpose and its duration is not unlimited.

Austin’s definition has been followed by Holland.

He defines ownership as plenary control over an object. According to him an owner has three rights on the subject owned:
1. Possession
2. Enjoyment
3. Disposition
Planetary control over an object implies complete control unrestricted by any law or fact. Thus, the criticism levelled against Austin’s definition would apply to that given by Holland in so far as the implication of the term plenary control goes.

Criticism Against Austin’s Definition:

Austin’s definition has been criticised by many writers.
They argue that it is fallacious to think that ownership is a single right; in fact, it is a bundle of rights including the right of enjoyment by the user. Even if the owner gives away his few rights in ownership, the residue are still owned by him. For example, mortgage of property by the owner.
Ownership is not merely a right but also a relationship between the right owned and the person owning it.

Owner having an unrestricted right of disposition has also been criticised. His right of disposition of the property can be curtailed by the state. For example, under article 31(2) of the Indian Constitution the state can take away the property of any person for public purpose.

Salmond’s Definition:

According to the Salmond ownership vests in the complex of rights which he exercises to the exclusive of all others. For Salmond what constitute ownership is a bundle of rights which in here resides in an individual. Salmond’s definition thus point out two attributes of ownership:
1. Ownership is a relation between a person and right that is vested in him 2. Ownership is incorporeal body or form

Salmond’s definition does not indicate the content of the ownership. It does not indicate the right, powers etc. which are implied in the concept of ownership. Again, it is not wholly correct to say that ownership is a relation between a person and right that is vested in him. As the most popular and common idea of ownership is a relationship between a person and a thing.

Criticism against Salmond’s Definition: Dugit says the thing is what is owned not the right which does not really exist.

According to Cook, there are many rights which a person may possess and to use the term owner to express the relationship between a person and a right is to introduce unnecessary confusion. Ownership is the name given to the bundle of rights.

Other Eminent Jurists
1. Fredrick Pollock improves upon other definition when he defines ownership as the entirety of the power of use and disposal allowed.
2. Prof. Keeton expresses a similar view when he observed that ownership is the ultimate right to the enjoyment in persons other than the one entitled to the ultimate use are exhausted.

These two definitions give relatively a more proper connotation of the term ownership. They bring out the most important fact that ownership is always subject to limitation imposed by the law; it is ultimate right to the employment of a thing subject to the condition or restriction imposed by law as to the use of the thing owned. Keeton has added another obvious dimension to the definition of ownership when he speaks of ultimate use is exhausted. Thus the owner may mortgage his house give it to tenant after the rights of the mortgagee or tenant are exhausted.

Characteristics of Ownership

There are certain characteristics as such:
1. It is supreme or limited. A proprietor of a property might be its outright proprietor and no one else may have any enthusiasm for the equivalent. It is additionally conceivable that there might be sure limitations on the privilege of proprietorship and those confinements might be forced by law or by volunatary understanding.
A proprietor may rent out his property. He may contract the equivalent. In this manner, he comes to have a constrained possession. A necessary limitation might be forced on proprietorship if someone else comes to have an easement on a specific property.

2. It is additionally conceivable that specific confinements might be forced on the proprietors of property in the midst of national crisis. The place of any proprietor might be ordered and any remuneration might be fixed by the endorsed specialist. The Government may delegate some specialist to control the rents charged by the proprietors of the property.

3. The Government may request certain duties from the proprietors of the property. On the off chance that those assessments are not paid, the Government may appropriate their property of that part of the property which is important to understand the cash because of the Government.

4. The responsibility for individual does not lessen with his passing. He is qualified for leave his property to his property to his successors. The proprietor can disseminate the property even in his own lifetime. Certain handicaps have been forced on newborn children and insane people concerning the transfer of property. Clearly, they are not skillful to go into substantial contracts. They are not expected to comprehend and value every one of the ramifications of their activities.

An examination of the idea of proprietorship, it would demonstrate that it has the accompanying attributes:
Proprietorship mama either be total or confined, that is, it might be selective or constrained. Possession can be constrained by understandings or by activity of law.

The privilege of proprietorship can be limited in time of crisis. For instance, building or land possessed by an individual can be obtained by the state for cabin armed force faculty amid the time of war.

A proprietor isn't permitted to utilize his territory or property in a way that it is damaging to other people. His privilege of proprietorship isn't unhindered.

The proprietor has an option to gangs what he claims. It is irrelevant whether he has genuine ownership of it or not. The most widely recognized case of this is a proprietor renting his home to an inhabitant.

Law does not present proprietorship on an unborn tyke or a crazy individual since they are unequipped for considering the nature and results of their demonstrations.

Proprietorship is residuary in character.

The privilege to proprietorship does not finish with the demise of the proprietor; rather it is exchanged to his beneficiaries.

Confinements may likewise be forced by law on the proprietor's privilege of transfer of the thing claimed. Any distance of property made with the goal to thrashing or postpone the cases of loan bosses can be put aside.

Different Kinds of Ownership

Experience shows that there are many kinds of ownership and some of them are corporeal and incorporeal ownership, sole ownership and co-ownership, legal and equitable ownership, vested and contingent ownership, trust and beneficial ownership, co- ownership and joint ownership and absolute and limited ownership.

Corporeal and Incorporeal Ownership
Corporeal ownership is the ownership of a material object and incorporeal ownership is the ownership of a right. Ownership of a house, a table or a machine is corporeal ownership. Ownership of a copyright, a patent or a trademark is incorporeal ownership. The distinction between corporeal and incorporeal ownership is connected with the distinction between corporeal and incorporeal things. Incorporeal ownership is described as ownership over tangible things. Corporeal things are those which can be perceived and felt by the senses and which are intangible. Incorporeal ownership includes ownership over intellectual objects and encumbrances.

Trust and Beneficial Ownership
Trust proprietorship is an occasion of copy possession. Trust property is what is claimed by two people in the meantime. The connection between the two proprietors is with the end goal that one of them is under a commitment to utilize his possession to support the other. The proprietorship is called useful possession. The responsibility for trustee is ostensible and not genuine, yet in the eye of law the trustee speaks to his recipient. In a trust, the connection between the two proprietors is with the end goal that one of them is under a commitment to utilize his possession to support the other. The previous is known as the trustee and his possession is trust proprietorship. The last is known as the recipient and his proprietorship is called helpful possession. The responsibility for trustee is in actuality ostensible and not genuine in spite of the fact that in the eye of law, he speaks to his recipient. In the event that property is given to X on trust for Y, X would be the trustee and Y would be the recipient or cestui que trust. X would be the lawful proprietor of the property and Y would be the gainful proprietor. X is under a commitment to utilize the property just to serve Y.

A trustee has no privilege of pleasure in the trust property. His proprietorship is just a matter of structure and not of substance. It is ostensible and not genuine. In the eye of law, a trustee is anything but a negligible operator however a proprietor. He is the individual to whom the property of another person is falsely given by law. The trustee needs to utilize his capacity to serve the recipient who is the genuine proprietor. As between the trustee and the recipient, the property has a place with the recipient and not the trustee.

Legal and Equitable Ownership

Legitimate proprietorship is what has its beginning in the guidelines of precedent-based law and evenhanded possession is what continues from the principles of value. As a rule, value perceives possession where law does not perceive proprietorship inferable from some legitimate imperfection. Lawful rights might be upheld in rem however impartial rights are implemented in person am as value acts in personam. One individual might be the legitimate proprietor and someone else the evenhanded proprietor of something very similar or directly in the meantime. At the point when an obligation is verbally doled out by X to Y, X remains the lawful proprietor of it however Y turns into its fair proprietor. There is just a single obligation as previously however it has now two proprietors.

The fair responsibility for legitimate right is not quite the same as the responsibility for evenhanded right. The responsibility for fair home loan is not quite the same as the impartial responsibility for lawful home loan.

There is no qualification among legitimate and even handed domains in India. Under the Indian Trusts Act, a trustee is the lawful proprietor of the trust property and the recipient has no immediate enthusiasm for the trust property itself. In any case, he has a privilege against the trustees to urge them to do the arrangements of the trust.

Vested and Contingent Ownership
Ownership is either vested or contingent. It is vested ownership when the title of the owner is already perfect. It is contingent ownership when the title of the owner is yet imperfect but is capable of becoming perfect on the fulfillment of some condition. In the case of vested ownership, ownership is absolute. In the case of contingent ownership it is conditional. For instance, a testator may leave property to his wife for her life and on her death to A, if he is then alive, but if A is dead to B. Here A and B are both owners of the property in question, but their ownership is merely contingent. It must, however, be stated that contingent ownership of a thing is something more than a simple chance or possibility of becoming an owner. It is more than a mere spes acquisitionis. A contingent ownership is based upon the mere possibility of future acquisition, but it is based upon the present existence of an inchoate or incomplete title.

Sole Ownership and Co-ownership
Ordinarily, a right is owned by one person only at a time. However, duplicate ownership is as much possible as sole ownership. When the ownership is vested in a single person, it is called sole ownership; when it is vested in two or more persons at the same time, it is called co ownership, of which co-ownership is a species. For example, the members of a partnership firm are co-owners of the partnership property. Under the Indian law, a co-owner is entitled to three essential rights, namely
1 Right to possession
2. Right to enjoy the property
3. Right to dispose of
Therefore, if a co-owner is deprived of property, he has right to be put back in possession. Such co-owner has interest in every portion of the property and has a right irrespective of his quantity of share to be in possession jointly with other co-owners.

Co-ownership and Joint Ownership
As per Salmond, "co-proprietorship may expect various structures. Its two boss sorts in English law are recognized as possession in like manner and joint proprietorship. The most significant distinction between these identifies with the impact of death of one of the co-proprietors. In the event that the proprietorship is normal, the privilege of a dead man plunges to his successors like other inheritable rights, however on the passing of one of two joint proprietors, his possession bites the dust with him and the survivor turns into the sole proprietor by prudence of this privilege of survivorship."

A joint possession happens when at least two people are qualified for a similar right or bound by a similar commitment in regard of a thing. For instance, an organization property is claimed by the people establishing the firm mutually and trustees are the joint proprietors of the trust property. The pith of the origination is that there is just one right and one commitment, with the goal that anything which quenches such right or commitment, discharges all gatherings.

Absolute and Limited Ownership
An absolute owner is the one in whom are vested all the rights over a thing to the exclusion of all. When all the rights of ownership, i.e. possession, enjoyment and disposal are vested in a person without any restriction, the ownership is absolute. But when there are restrictions as to user, duration or disposal, the ownership will be called a limited ownership. For example, prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a woman had only a limited ownership over the estate because she held the property only for her life and after her death; the property passed on to the last heir or last holder of the property. Another example of limited ownership in English law is life tenancy when an estate is held only for life.

Did You Know?
Now that we are well acquainted with what The concept of Ownership is we must know what possession is and we’ll compare both to know the difference.
According to Salmond, in the whole range of legal theory, there is no conception more difficult than that of Possession. Possession is the most basic relation between man and a thing.
Possession is an evidence of ownership.

1) Meaning:
"Possession" literary means physical control over a thing or an object. It expresses the closest relation of fact that can exist between a thing and the person, who possess it. In law, possession means it includes not only physical control over a thing but also an intention to exercise that physical control. Example: A has an article in his hand. In other words, he is in possession of that article. The person who is in possession is called a 'Possessor'. In human life, consumption of material things is very essential and it would be Impossible without the position of the material things. Therefore the concept of possession is of utmost practical importance in human life.

2) Definition:
The concept of possession is though basic and essential in human life, it is a difficult to define. There is no fixed or precise definition of possession because it is legal as well as factual concept. Supreme Court in Superintendent Remembrancer Legal Affairs vs Anil Kumar, AIR 1980 SC 52, held that it is impossible to work out a completely logical and precise definition of Possession uniformly applicable to all situation in the context of all the statutes.

It is very difficult to define the term Possession. Some Jurists have given different definitions.

John Salmond: Salmond defines Possession as, possession is the continuing exercise of a claim to the Exclusive use of an object.

Savigny: Savigny defines Possession as, intention coupled with physical power to exclude others from the use of material object. Salmond criticized Savingy's definition and ground that Savingy committed an error by including the element of physical power in his definition.

O.W. Holmes: Holmes defines Possession as, To gain Possession a man must stand in a certain physical relation to the object and to the rest of the world, and must have certain intent.

Maine: Maine defines the possession as, physical detention coupled with the intention to hold the things detained as one's own.

Sir Frederick Pollock: Sir Frederick Pollock defines Possession as, In common speech a man is said to possess to be in possession of anything of which he has the apparent control from the use of which he has apparent power for excluding others.

Ihering: The best among them is the definition given by Ihiring. According to him, whenever a person looked like an owner in relation to a thing, he had possession of it unless Possession was denied to him by rules of law based on practical convenience.

1) Title
Definition And Nature Of Title:

Titulus of Roman law
Titre of French law

1.Title
2. According to Salmond, title is the fifth element of a legal right. He said Every legal right has a title, that is to say, certain facts or events by reason of which the right has become vested in its owner.

3. Holland does not include title as an element of legal right. A tendency is noticed towards the identification of title with right. Austin also does not approve of the use of title for right. His contention is that, title is not the right itself but merely an element of right.

4. Legal rights are created by title. A person has right to a thing because he has a title to that thing. Title means any fact which creates a right or duty.

5. According to Salmond, “The title is the de facto antecedent of which the right is the de jure consequent.” Title is the root from which rights proceed.

Classification of Titles:
1.salmond:
1. Vestitive facts are those which have relation to right. They relate to the creation, extinction and transfer of rights. · Investitive facts create them and · divestitive facts destroy them.

2. The main features of Vestitive facts are that they create either a right or extinguish it or transfer it from one person to another.

3. The Vestitive facts are classified into two parts – investitive facts or titles and divestitive facts.

4. Titles are also called investitive facts or facts as a result of which a right comes to be vested on its owner. Investitive facts or titles are further divided into original titles and derivative titles.

5. Original title - A right may be created de novo and it may have no previous existence. Such a right is called an original title. Derivative title - If a right is created by the transfer of an existing right, it is called a derivative title.

6. Divestitive facts are divided into alienative facts and extinctive facts.

7. Extinctive divestitive facts- The facts of which the legal result is to destroy rights are called extinctive divestitive facts. Alienative derivative facts-The facts of which the legal result is to transfer right from the owner are called alienative derivative facts.

8. It is to be noted that in the case of a transfer of right, the same facts are derivative investitive facts and alienative divestitive facts.

Bentham:
1. Dipositive facts can be divided into three parts – investitive facts, divestitive facts and translative facts.
2. Translative facts refer to transferring of rights and duties.
3. Investitive facts are divided into two parts – collative and impositive facts. · Collative facts- confer rights and · Impositive facts- impose duties.
4. Divestitive facts are subdivided into – destructive and exonerative facts. · Destructive divestitive facts ends rights and · Exonerative divestitive facts release a person from duties.

2) Act In The Law
1. Acts in the law are really the acts of parties performed voluntarily. These facts create, transfer and extinguish rights. They express the will of the parties.
2. Acts in law are of two kinds – unilateral and bilateral.
3. Unilateral acts are those in which the will of onlt one party is effective or operative. The transaction is perfectly valid even without the consent of the parties who are going to be affected. E.g. Avoidance of voidable contract
4. Bilateral acts require the consenting will of two or more distinct persons or parties. E.g. Contract.
5. It is to be observed that the same act in law may be unilateral with regard to some parties and bilateral with regard to others.

Kinds of Agreements
1. There are three kinds of agreements broadly. Some of them create rights, some transfer and some extinguish them

2. Create rights:
Contracts – legal tie of a personal right and binds the parties
· Two kinds
Grants – rights other than contractual rights are created.

· According to Salmond, contracts are bilateral but there are some unilateral contracts as well.
Contracts are unilateral when a promise is made by one party and accepted by the other.
3. Transfer rights - Agreements which transfer rights are called assignments.
4. Extinguish rights – Agreements which extinguish rights are known as releases.

Validity Of Agreements:
1. Salmond points out many defects which makes agreements invalid. The first is capacity of parties.
2. Certain legal formalities have to be fulfilled and if they are not fulfilled the agreement becomes invalid.
3. Agreements against morality or public policy.
4. Error or mistake in agreement.
5. Agreement without due consent of parties is invalid. Lack of consideration makes agreemen

Conclusion
*Ownership
We may in conclusion say that:
1. Ownership is a right which comprise of powers, claims, privileges etc.
2. Ownership is in respect of a thing may be corporeal or incorporeal
3. The right relating to or connection with ownership are subject to the state regulation i.e. can be limited or restricted by law
4. Owner is he who is entitled to the residue of rights with respect to an object left after the limitation resulting from the voluntary acts of the owner or those imposed by law are exhausted
5. Ownership does not imply or indicate absolute or unlimited rights either use, disposal or duration.

Difference Between Ownership And Title
One of the popular misconceptions that I run into when I train people, is the belief that the assignment from a parent application does not need to be filed against its child continuation or divisional applications. The problem here is that there is a disconnect between the words owner and title. The word owner refers to a legal right of possession and the word title refers to the instrument that constitutes the evidence of such legal right, which is located in the ownership registry of the applicable jurisdiction in which the patent is registered.

In the US, the title to a patent application is at first held by the innovator; in any case, the underlying proprietor of that application might be either the creator or the element to which the designer has a lawful commitment to exchange or relegate their rights. On the off chance that the creator is utilized, and the innovator has a legitimate commitment to exchange the responsibility for development to the business, the business would then be the genuine proprietor of the development.

Regularly, the possession exchange will likewise be affirmed by a task from the innovator to their boss, which is then recorded against that underlying patent application. Much of the time, when a continuation or divisional application is documented sometime in the future, that kid application will likewise be claimed by the business, yet the title to that kid application does not change until the task is recorded at the patent office.

For what reason is it essential to keep the chain of title clear? Cash, obviously. Protected innovation is property that can be entirely significant. On the off chance that an organization that claims IP needs to get an advance however a bank, the IP could be utilized as the insurance for the credit.

One of the due persistence steps taken by (or in the interest of) banks when they are thinking about giving an advance is to confirm that the guarantee is really claimed by the substance who is requesting the cash. The most straightforward method for demonstrating that is by means of a title look in the appropriate library. The bank needs to check that the "chain of title" is clear and detectable back to the creator, with no breaks in the chain.

Consider it along these lines, when you purchase a house it will tyipcally be financed by means of a bank. The bank will loan you the cash and the house is utilized as security. Yet, before the bank will give you an advance, they need a title pursuit to check that the element who is selling the property has a legitimate ideal to offer it, and that there are no encumbrances that are obscure. Banks ordinarily treat "Scholarly" property equivalent to "Genuine" property.

Banks require the title to every property be spotless provided that the organization defaults on the credit and the bank needs to assume control over the responsibility for IP – typically to exchange it – it is a lot simpler over the long haul if the possession can be completely followed through the title history. An ensuing purchaser will typically need verification that the IP is lawfully held by the bank before they get it.

So why record the assignments at filing when it can be recorded at a later date? To cut costs? After all it’s not legally required. Well, unless the client is filing purely for posterity’s sake, recording the assignments up front IS cutting costs and saving them from unwarranted expenses. It will be much more expensive to trace and fix assignments than to simply record them up front. Time is money in our industry. Being more cost-effective with your time while saving your client money means filing the assignment concurrently with the application

Acknowledgement
The success and final outcome of this project required a lot guidance and assistance from many people and I am extremely privileged to have got this all along the completion of this project .all that I have done is only due to such supervision and assistance and I would not forget to thank them.

I respect and thank my respected teacher Dr.Ashok Wadji (Registrar In-Charge) for providing me such a wonderful opportunity to do this project in MNLU, Aurangbad and giving us support and guidance which was required to complete this project on time .i would also like to express gratitude towards certain books , power-point presentation by our teacher and the internet which helped significantly in completing this successfully.

This project was a very knowledgeable one regarding the “THE TITLE AND OWNERSHIP” foran in-depth study which helped me gain a lot from it.

References
Journals
Journal of Indian law institute
Journal of ISIRBT law forum

End-Notes
1) Dr. Y.K. Sharma, Indian society; issues and problems(Lakshmi NaraiyanAgarwal, Agra,2007)
2) www.bls.gov/spotlight/women
3) www.ndi.org
4) .Ansari, Mr. Hamid, 2011 (Oct (24-30), Gender Equality is crucial for smart Economics, Convocation Address, University News, Vol – 49, No. 43, P (22-23).
5) . Mandal, Ajit and Mete, Jayanta, 2012, May (14-20) , Women Empowerment and Education in the context of India, University News, Vol – 50, No- 20, P (12-15).

Amarthya Ghutke Line 1 MNLU Aurangbad MNLU hostel kanchadwadi Line 2: MNLUA Aurangbad Line 3 Aurangbad India Line 4: e-mail- [email protected]	Ashwin Line 1 MNLU Aurangbad MNLU hostel kanchadwadi Line 2: MNLUA Aurangbad Line 3 Aurangbad India Line 4: e-mail- [email protected]
Kaif Line 1 MNLU Aurangbad MNLU hostel kanchadwadi Line 2: MNLUA Aurangbad Line 3 Aurangbad India Line 4: e-mail- [email protected]	Manichandan Reddy Line 1 MNLU Aurangbad MNLU hostel kanchadwadi Line 2: MNLUA Aurangbad Line 3 Aurangbad India Line 4: e-mail- [email protected]