Doctrine of Election
Doctrine of Election: Definition and Explanation
The Doctrine of Election is an equitable principle that arises in civil law when a person is presented with two inconsistent rights or remedies, and they must choose (elect) to pursue one of them but cannot take advantage of both.
In simple terms, it means:
When a person has the option between two inconsistent or mutually exclusive rights or claims, they must choose one and abandon the other.
Once the election is made, it is binding and final.
The doctrine prevents a person from double recovery or double benefits for the same cause of action.
When Does the Doctrine Apply?
The doctrine typically applies in cases involving:
Contracts or gifts with alternative rights or conditions.
Wills and inheritance disputes where a beneficiary must choose between different gifts or benefits.
Transfer of property or possession, where accepting one title or benefit means rejecting another.
Situations where a person cannot claim two inconsistent rights over the same property or subject matter.
Key Principles of the Doctrine
Two inconsistent rights or remedies: The person has to choose between two mutually exclusive options.
Knowledge of both options: The person must be aware of the two options available to them.
Intention to choose: The choice or election must be made intentionally or through conduct.
Binding effect: Once election is made, the person cannot revoke or go back on it.
Illustrative Examples
A person receives a gift subject to a condition; if they accept the gift, they must accept the condition as well (cannot accept the gift but reject the condition).
A beneficiary under a will is given the choice between a legacy or a share in the estate but cannot claim both.
Important Case Law on Doctrine of Election
1. M.C. Chockalingam v. M.C. Mariammal (1957 AIR 636, 1957 SCR 428)
The Supreme Court held that where a person is offered two inconsistent options, they must elect one.
The election can be express or implied by conduct.
Once election is made, it is final and binding.
2. Ramanna Kamath v. Durgabai (AIR 1963 SC 338)
It was held that the doctrine prevents a person from taking inconsistent benefits from the same transaction.
The election must be made knowingly.
3. Inamdar v. Yashwant (AIR 1968 SC 143)
The court clarified that election must be made with full knowledge and free will.
If a person claims inconsistent rights simultaneously, the doctrine of election applies to stop that.
4. Ramesh Chandra v. Kali Prasad (AIR 1956 SC 133)
Held that election is necessary to avoid injustice or double recovery.
If a person accepts a benefit under a contract or will, they cannot later repudiate conditions attached to it.
Application in Specific Situations
Election in Wills and Inheritance
If a beneficiary is given alternative benefits in a will, they must choose one.
They cannot accept one gift and reject another inconsistent gift.
Election in Contractual Transactions
If a contract provides two options or remedies, the aggrieved party must elect which remedy to pursue.
Election in Sale and Possession
If a person claims ownership and possession under two inconsistent titles, they must elect which title to assert.
Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Doctrine | Must choose between two inconsistent rights/remedies. |
| Purpose | Prevent double recovery or unjust enrichment. |
| Requirement | Knowledge of both options and intention to choose. |
| Binding effect | Election, once made, is final and cannot be withdrawn. |
| Common fields | Wills, contracts, property disputes, gifts with conditions. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments