The main legal point established in the judgment is the doctrine of election and the principle of approbation and reprobation, which prevent a party from initially approving a transaction and later claiming its invalidity.

Burn, J.

1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur in Appeal No. 27 of 1936. The appellant was the second judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 247 of 1924 on the file of the District Munsiff of Narsapur. In that suit the first respondent in this appeal got a decree for money against a father and three sons. Before judgment on the 16th October, 1924, the joint family property belonging to the defendants in the suit had been attached. After the attachment a partition suit was filed by the sons against their father and the matter is also further complicated by the fact that after the attachment an insolvency petition was brought against the father and in that petition the father was adjudicated. The Official Receiver sold the fathers one-fourth share in the joint family property and proposed to sell the shares of the three sons. The first respondent the decree-holder in O.S. No. 247 of 1924 objected to the sale of the three-fourths share belonging to the sons but his objection preferred to the Official Receiver was dismissed for default. The sale was held by the Official Receiver and the first respondent took part in the bidding. The first respondent subsequently filed O.P. No. 19 of 1928 to have the sale of the sons three-fourths share set aside but he allowed this petition to be dismissed for default. The Official Receiver then distributed the proceeds of the sale to the creditors in Insolvency of whom the first respondent was one. Subsequently the purchaser at the sale held by the Official Receiver sued the sons for possession in O.S. No. 36 of 1931 (Sub-Court, Narasapur) but his suit was dismissed on the ground that the sale of the sons shares by the Official Receiver was void. The vendee preferred an appeal but the appeal was not pressed because he and the three sons entered into a compromise by which the vendee paid the sons Rs. 800 and the sons executed in his favour a deed of release or relinquishment undertaking not to dispute his rights in future. This deed was executed on the 22nd September, 1933. In 1934, the first respondent presented the execution petition which has given rise to this appeal. He sought to bring to sale the three-fourths share in the joint family property belonging to the three sons. In 1935 the District Munsiff of Narasapur ordered execution to proceed. The second judgment-debtor (present appellant) appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur and in A.S. No. 31 of 1935 the order for execution was set aside and the execution petition remanded to the Court of the District Munsiff for fresh disposal. The District Munsiff was ordered to consider the question of the validity of sale of the three-fourths share belonging to the sons. Thereupon another District Munsiff considered the question afresh and although he held that the sale of the three-fourths share by the Official Receiver was certainly illegal and invalid, he dismissed the application for execution on the ground that the decree-holder was not entitled to proceed in execution against the same property which had been sold by the Official Receiver since the decree-holder had taken his share of the dividend out of the sale proceeds. On appeal the present learned Subordinate Judge of Narasapur reversed the decision of the District Munsiff and held that the decree-holder is entitled to proceed against the three-fourths share. The learned Subordinate Judge therefore sent back the execution petition for further proceedings in execution. The second judgment-debtor has preferred this appeal.

2. The appellants position is simple ; he contends that the decree-holder approved of the sale held by the Official Receiver after it was held and that he cannot now be allowed to say that the Official Receivers sale was void. The position of the 1st respondent decree-holder is equally simple. He says that the sale held by the Official Receiver was undoubtedly void so far as the three-fourths share belonging to the sons is concerned and