SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 524

M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, R.M.SAHAI
Prashant Ramachandra Deshpande – Appellant
Versus
Maruti Balaram Haibatti – Respondent


Advocates:
B.V.Gadnis, GOBINDA MUKHOTY, H.A.RAICHURA, M.K.Dua, R.Jagannath Goulay, Uday Sinha

( 1 ) IN this tenants appeal directed against the order dismissing his revision for non-compliance of Ss. (1 of Section 29 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, what has been vehemently argued for the landlord is that the appellant having given an undertaking before the High court that he would vacate the premises within six months, he is precluded from approaching this court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed on R. N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir and it is urged that since law does not permit a person to approbate and reprobate and this principle is founded on the doctrine of election, this petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground.

( 2 ) ELECTION is a defence available affecting property and "considers that as done which ought to have been done", Halshurys Laws of England, 4th Edn. , Vol. 16, para 1372. It is statutorily recognised by Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It applies where a person professes to transfer property which he has no right to transfer. Similarly, on the principle that a person may not approbate and reprobate, "a species of estoppel has arisen which seems tobe intermediate between estoppel by record




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top