Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. : This is an appeal by special leave and the main point involved in it is whether the Rewa State Pre-emption Act, 1949, is unconstitutional on the ground that it places an unreasonable restriction upon the right to acquire property enumberated in cl. (1) (f) of Art. 19 of the Constitution. But before we here arguments upon this point it is necessary to dispose of the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 by Mr. N. C. Chatterjee to the effect that the defendant-appellant is precluded from proceeding with the appeal because subsequent to the grant of special leave to appeal to him he withdrew the price of pre-emption which was deposited by the respondent No. 1 in the court below. He contends- that by withdrawing the pre-emption price the appellant must be deemed to have accepted the decree which alone entitled him to the amount and that, therefore, he cannot be heard to say that the decree is erroneous. In short, Mr. Chatterjee relies upon the doctrine that a person cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate.

2. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the well-known case of Tinkler v. Hilder, (1849) 154