Abstract: 

The aim of this project is to address the nuances of numerous decisions and provisions relating to the “Doctrine of Election”. Understanding and interpreting “Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882” is a huge undertaking for us. At the same time, the paper focuses on sections “180-190 of the Indian Succession Act”. It goes on to explain the doctrine's context, requisite components, rule and exception, as well as case law and election types. It goes on to explain the doctrine's purpose, required components, rule and exception, as well as case law and election types.

INTRODUCTION

Election involves a choice between two distinct rights. If an individual is provided two rights under the same instrument, and any one of them is superior than the other, he is obligated to select only one between the two.

The “Doctrine of Election” is established by “Section 35” of “the Transfer of Property Act” and “Sections 180 to 190 of the Indian Succession Act”. It says that when a party wants to transfer any property on which they have no right and the benefit from such party is on the owner itself, the title-holder must decide whether to authenticate or refuse the transmission.

This theory propounded from “The Equity Principle”, which mentions that any person cannot take the profits from a sale, which means that he cannot keep the property while he is receiving benefit from the same. A choice has to be made regarding accepting the instrument or neglecting it. The “Doctrine of Election” is a general legal concept that allows the beneficiary to regulate if he or she wishes to own property of someone else or not to keep it or recognize the heir's intentions.

The doctrine is founded on the legal principle “Allegans contraria not est audiendus”, which means "he who alleges facts that contradict each other is not to be heard."

“Allegans contraria non est. audiendus”: A person who alleges statements that are contrary to each other is not to be heard. This doctrine is general in scope, encompassing Hindus, Muslims, and Christians alike. “This theory is based on the equitable doctrine that whoever acknowledges a gain under an instrument or transaction of its choosing shall follow the whole instrument or transaction or renounce it”. In the case of “Codrington v. Codrington”[i], this theory was developed (1857).

Example: Arun settles to give Barkha 50 lakh on the circumstance that he sells his house to Chando; now Barkha must choose what to do. She would have to provide her home to Chando if she takes Arun's offer. In the other hand, if she doesn't, she won't get the $50,000, so she'll have to pick between the two options.

If the individual who was supposed to receive a benefit refuses it, the property that was supposed to be transferred to him reverts to the transferor, and the transferor is responsible for compensating the dissatisfied transferee. If the transferor deceases already the transferee will make the ballot, the transferor's legitimate descendants can pay the disgruntled transferee from the inherited properties.

The owner's decision may be made directly, by communication, or indirectly. The original owner's acceptance of the payout is conditional on the following:

·       He has an obligation to elect, which he must be aware of.

·       Evidence of information of conditions that would affect a fair man's decision in calling an election is required.

·       Acceptance for a period of two years (Indian Succession Act, Section 188(1))

·       It is unlikely to return to the status quo.

Essentials

According to the case of “Dhanpati v. Devi Prasad and others (1970)”, [ii]the following provisions must be met prior to the election:

  • The individual moving the possessions should not be the property's holder.
  • The individual moving must also give away his property to the owner during the same time and in the same instrument.
  • All transmissions must be part of the same contract, including the selling of the owner's property to the transferee and the conferring of the valuation on the owner of the property. The theory of election does not exist if the transactions are made by two distinct machines.
  • A proprietary interest in the property is demanded of the owner.
  • The owner if not getting direct profit from the sale of the property but is getting any indirect benefit then it cannot be put for election.
  • The question of election should not arise where a person earns a bonus in a certain place. For example, a person may recognize a bequest for an estate while still keeping the property under his personal competence.

RIGHTS OF A TRANSFEREE WHO HAS BEEN DISAPPOINTED

If the candidate refuses the election, the transferor is obliged to do something decent for the transferee under the following circumstances:

  • In the case of a voluntary transition, where the transferor has died or is unable to make a fresh/new transfer.
  • If the transferee/buyer who was disappointed is paid.

INDIRECT BENEFIT

If an individual benefit indirectly rather than directly from the purchases, he or she does not need to elect; the law would not apply. If S agrees to give T Rs. 500 if his wife sells R's estate for Rs. 1000, for example. T's wife will no longer be put to a vote so T will be making any of the decisions.

WHO DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE?

Individuals who benefit indirectly rather than directly from purchases, as specified by section 35, are not required to elect.

For e.g., if Aman agrees to give Bunty 1000 if his son buys Champa's house for 1200, Aman's son is not forced to vote because it is Bunty who will have to make the decision.

WHEN DOES AN INDIVIDUAL MAKE THE DECISION TO DISAGREE?

According to Section 35 of TPA, if the owner declines to allow the move, he must surrender the transferred service, which would be restored to the transferor or his representative as if he had not been published. The following situations are possible:

  • The transfer is volunteer, and the Transferor has passed away or is unable to make another move. 
  • In all situations where the move must be reviewed, it is the transferor's or his representative's duty to refund dissatisfied customers. If the decision is exercised, the settlement balance is the amount or value of the land that will be sold.

MODES OF ELECTION UNDER TPA, 1882

There are two forms of elections:

  • EXPRESS/DIRECT
  • IMPLIED/ INDIRECT
  • The chosen option is conveyed directly to the transferor in a direct election. In the case of indirect voting, though, the selection is shown by the transferee's conduct.

There are three conditions for presumption under implied election:

  • the advantage has been transferred and the person has enjoyed it for two years without taking any action to waive the right;
  • the person has no experience of election and has acknowledged the benefit;
  • The person has not taken any choice/ decision within one year of the transition.

THE THEORY OF ELECTION HAS CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS

According to section 35 of the TP Act, any person who transfers property to another person and makes a beneficiary provision for the transferee after approving the transfer is in violation of the law. The transferee may then refuse the transferor's offer to take advantage of the beneficiary provision. However, there is an exception to this rule: if the transferee does not give his or her direct permission or a definitive judgment, he or she will be treated as having approved the transfer in the following situations:

  • If the transferee completely enjoys the beneficiary clause specified in the transfer, or if the transferee fully profits from the transfer, the transferee is deemed to have approved the transfer.
  • If the transferee has not given his or her consent to the transfer of property after one year, the transferee is required to respond. If he or she does not do so, it would be assumed that he has given his consent to the move.
  • In cases of disabilities, such as minority or lunacy, the requirement to vote may be revoked. Until their parent makes the move.
  • If the transferor creates a “beneficiary clause and an independent beneficiary clause” at the time of execute. If the transferee does not agree to the deal, the independent beneficiary clause would extend to him or her as well.

SECTION 35 ESTABLISHES

If the person to which the service is available knows the service, the receipt of the service is a choice by that person to validate the switch. The duty to choose to be conscious of situations that will change fair people's voting choices, or the inability to respond to the situation. If the contrary proof is not available, or if the person delivering the service has used it for two years without taking steps to justify their dispute, knowledge or dismissal is presumed. Section 35 further establishes that this information or denial may be derived by any action done by that person, meaning that those who are involved in the property assumed to be moved are not held in the same position as if the action had not been taken.

ELECTION HAS A TIME LIMIT

According to Section 35, the land owner shall contact either the transferor or his agent who is working under him within 1 year from the date of the execution. They are therefore known to have voted to confirm the election if they do not act until the deadline has elapsed or in the case where they are aware of the expiration date and have received response from their members.

Election by an incapacitated being is not possible unless and unless the subsequent situations are met:

·       His handicap is no longer a problem.

·       Everyone else, who is not ill, votes on his behalf.

DOCTRINE OF ELECTION APPLIED TO:

HINDU LAW

Since the start. Hindus are exposed to this theory. In the case “Rungamma v atchamma”[iii], the Privy Council made a provision that an individual could not agree and reject according to him. One cannot accept something until he benefits from it, and one cannot resist believing something until prejudiced.

ENGLISH LAW

The customer who wishes not to be moved does not risk income, however he or she is obligated to refund those who are unhappy. The English and Bangladeshi legal systems are diametrically opposed. It's necessary to differentiate between English and Bangladeshi law regulates elective teaching in the region. The below are the key differences:

  • In British law, the concept of restitution is used, whereas confiscation laws are used in English law.
  • English law does not regulate election timing. Under British rule, the landowner has given a time period of 1 year to decide to confirm the transfer or not. During this time, if the owner fails to accept the reuse, it is presumed that he chooses to confirm the transaction.

CONCLUSION

"The Rule of Election" is clarified in "Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882". Assuming a deceased benefactor endeavours to take property having a place with another person and, makes a contraption to that individual, the regulation of political decision is a custom-based law hypothesis of value that permits a recipient to pick between having the property and tolerating the gadget. As a result, "Section 35" determines that a person who doesn't profit straightforwardly from an exchange however benefits in a roundabout way from it doesn't need to choose. Moreover, an individual who profits by the exchange in one limit may protest it in another.

[i] 1864 C138.

[ii] (1970) 3 SCC 776

[iii] (1858) 4 Moo Ind.App 1:7 Suth WR 57


About the Author: This post is prepared by Ananaya Chauhan, Law Student at Delhi Metropolitan Education affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. She can be reached at ananayaaa7@gmail.com 

 

MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter, or join our WhatsApp group. You can also subscribe to our Newsletter for Email Updates.

 For More Legal Articles, Click Here