A is a Chief Executive Officer in a Multi-National Company situated at Chennai.....The company has confidence that A's wife will reside with A in company's house. Is wife of A bound for election?

Question: A is a Chief Executive Officer in a Multi-National Company situated at Chennai. There is a house in the name of his wife in Chennai. The company gives a house to A in the capacity of Chief Executive Officer and by the same deed gives the house of A's wife to B. The company has confidence that A's wife will reside with A in company's house. Is wife of A bound for election? [BJS 2018]

Find the answer to the mains question of Property Law only on Legal Bites. [A is a Chief Executive Officer in a Multi-National Company situated at Chennai. There is a house in the name of his wife in Chennai. The company gives a house to A in the capacity of Chief Executive Officer and by the same deed gives the house of A's wife to B. The company has confidence that A's wife will reside with A in company's house. Is wife of A bound for election?]

Answer

In accordance with the principles of the doctrine of election, as established in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and supported by legal precedents such as the case of C. Beepathumma v. Velasari Shankaranarayana Kadambolithaya, AIR 1965 SC 241, the term "election" refers to the act of choosing between two inconsistent or alternative rights or claims. Under this doctrine, an individual is obliged to make a clear choice when faced with such alternatives, and they cannot both approve and disapprove of a particular transaction simultaneously. This doctrine is grounded in the concept that one cannot approbate (approve) and reprobate (disapprove) at the same time.

In a situation where a transfer of property has taken place, Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act imposes an obligation on the true owner to choose between two options: either to authorize the transferor to defer from the transfer, or to relinquish all benefits created by the transfer. This doctrine is in alignment with the principles of equity, which hold that it would be unjust for the owner to enjoy both the benefit and the property in question simultaneously.

Therefore, the owner must make a clear choice and cannot enjoy both the benefit and the property.

In the case of Muhammad Kader Ali Fakir v. Fakir Lakman Hakim, PLR 1956 Dacca 370, the court explained the Doctrine of Election in the following words:

“The foundation of the doctrine of election is that a person taking the benefit of an instrument must also bear the burden, imposed thereby and that he cannot take under and against the same instrument. It is a breach of the general rule that no one may approbate or reprobate. The doctrine is based on intended intention to this extent that the law presumes that the author of an instrument intended to give effect to every part of it.

There is an obligation on him who takes a benefit under a will or other instrument intended to give full effect to that instrument under which it was beyond the power of the donor or settler to dispose of, but to which effect can be given by the concurrence of him who receives the benefit under the same instrument, the law will impose on him who takes the benefit, the obligation of carrying the instrument into full and complete force and effect. If an instrument is invalid in part what remains is sufficient to put a person to his election if he claims a benefit under it.”

In the present case at hand, where a multinational company has given a house to A, the Chief Executive Officer, and, by the same deed, transferred the house of A's wife to B, the critical factor is whether A's wife has willingly chosen to approve the transfer of her property to B. If she has accepted the house provided by the company for her and is residing with her husband in the company's house, it signifies her consent to the transfer of her property. Consequently, based on the doctrine of election, she would be bound by the transfer under Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.