Person Who Takes Benefit Of A Portion Of The Will Cannot Challenge The Remaining Portion: SC [Read Judgment]

Ashok Kini

3 April 2020 12:16 PM GMT

  • Person Who Takes Benefit Of A Portion Of The Will Cannot Challenge The Remaining Portion: SC [Read Judgment]

    " A party cannot blow hot and blow cold at the same time."

    The Supreme Court has observed that a person who takes benefit of a portion of the Will cannot challenge the remaining portion of the Will. In this case, it had come on record that the plaintiff (who filed a suit for partition claiming that the subject property is a Hindu Undivided Family one) had earlier filed a suit for eviction of the tenant by claiming that the property had been...

    The Supreme Court has observed that a person who takes benefit of a portion of the Will cannot challenge the remaining portion of the Will.

    In this case, it had come on record that the plaintiff (who filed a suit for partition claiming that the subject property is a Hindu Undivided Family one) had earlier filed a suit for eviction of the tenant by claiming that the property had been bequeathed to him by one Hari Ram by the way of the will. In the present suit filed by him, he disputed the will by contending that the subject property was not self acquired, but HUF.

    The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta taking note of these undisputed facts said:

    "It is trite law that a party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. This principle is based on the principle of doctrine of election. In respect of Wills, this doctrine has been held to mean that a person who takes benefit of a portion of the Will cannot challenge the remaining portion of the Will."

    The Court said that, having elected to accept the Will of Hari Ram, by filing a suit for eviction of the tenant by claiming that the property had been bequeathed to him by Hari Ram, cannot now turn around and say that the averments made by Hari Ram that the property was his personal property,. The bench further said:

    "Where one party knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, it is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance or order. The doctrine of election is a facet of law of estoppel. A party cannot blow hot and blow cold at the same time. Any party which takes advantage of any instrument must accept all that is mentioned in the said document."
    Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6875 OF 2008
    Case name: BHAGWAT SHARAN Vs. PURUSHOTTAM  
    Coram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta
    Counsel: Sr. Advocates Sushil Kumar Jain & Harin P. Raval,
    Counsel: Sr. Advocates Guru Krishna Kumar, Vikas Singh & Anupam Lal Das

    Click here to read/download Judgment

    Read Judgment


    Next Story