Madras High Court Evokes Doctrine Of 'Approbate & Reprobate', Holds A Party Can't Take Contradictory Stands In Different Courts

Madras High Court has evoked the 'doctrine of approbate and reprobate' to hold that a party cannot claim a right over a property when he had obtained another Decree from the competent Civil Court on the ground that no right or title was conveyed to him under the sale deed.Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that the defendant party claiming right over the schedule property cannot take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/ courts. The judge observed that the position is well settled by the Indian Courts and foreign courts as well.In the case at hand, the defendant claiming right over the Schedule property had obtained a decree in 1975 from the Civil Court by taking a stand that the vendor of the property, one Mr Dayalan, did not convey any right or title under the sale deed since the property was already acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. He sought for a refund of the entire sale consideration along with the cost incurred by him. While the suit filed by the defendant was pending, the parties came to an agreement and through a joint endorsement and a sum of Rs. 7000/- from the vendor in full quits. This was recorded and a decree was passed by the Civil Court.The court observed that Birmingham v. Kirwan (1805 2 Sch. & Lef. 449) has set out the well-established rule of equity that a man cannot approbate and reprobate. Though the principle originated in Scotland and is the foundation of the principle of elections, the same has been followed by Indian Supreme Court in Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683 and Premalata @ Sunita v. Naseeb Bee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 317. Therefore, the court noted in the order as below:"... By virtue of this Decree, the respondent has given up his rights and title over the property that was purchased by him under Ex.B3 [sale deed involving vendor Dayalan]. Under such circumstances, it will not be open to the respondent to take a completely contrary stand as if the property was not acquired by the Government and he continues to be the owner of the property. This is where the principle of approbate and reprobate comes into play."In Premalata @ Sunita, the bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna had observed that a litigant cannot be permitted to take two different/contradictory stands before two different forums while applying the doctrine of approbate and reprobate on a revenue matter.In Union of India v. N Murugesan (2022 2 SCC 25), the apex court held that the doctrine of approbate and reprobate is a principle emerging from common law and not Section 115 of the Evidence Act. It noted as below:"A person cannot be allowed to have the benefit of an instrument while questioning the same. Such a party either has to affirm or disaffirm the transaction. This principle has to be applied with more vigour as a common law principle, if such a party actually enjoys the one part fully and on near completion of the said enjoyment, thereafter questions the other part. An element of fair play is inbuilt in this principle. It is also a species of estoppel dealing with the conduct of a party."This part of the judgment in N Murugesan was also referred to by the Madras High Court while rejecting the claim of the petitioner and noting that the lower courts unnecessarily ventured to examine the ownership of the defendant over the schedule property on other grounds.Other ObservationsThe court was considering an appeal filed by two persons over three schedule properties out of which the ownership of the appellants over the first two schedule properties was upheld by the lower courts. The plaintiffs sought further relief of delivery of vacant possession of the 'C' schedule property after directing the defendant to remove the superstructures on the ground that it was owned by them. According to them, this property is situated on the eastern side of the property owned by the plaintiffs, comprising 'A' Schedule and 'B' Schedule properties. This adverse finding alone was interfered by the High Court without granting any right to the appellants.By an additional affidavit, they also submitted that the said property has not been acquired by any authority.With respect to the third portion of the property, i.e, marked as Schedule C Property, the trial court and the lower appellate court held that there are no grounds to rule in favour of the plaintiffs for the reliefs of recovery of possession and ownership. The lower appellate court held that the respondent/ defendant owns the land on the eastern side of 'A' nad 'B' Schedule properties. Accordingly, a second appeal was filed by the appellants before High Court with respect to C Schedule property.The defendant submitted that the government only acquired 18 cents and 6 7/8 cents that constitute C Schedule property was left untouched by the acquiring authority.After considering the rival submissions, the court noted in the order that:"There is no requirement for this Court to undertake the exercise of finding out how much...

Madras High Court Evokes Doctrine Of 'Approbate & Reprobate', Holds A Party Can't Take Contradictory Stands In Different Courts

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Madras High Court Evokes Doctrine Of 'Approbate & Reprobate', Holds A Party Can't Take Contradictory Stands In Different Courts

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers