1. The finding is that the testator intended to make an independent gift of Rs. 800 to the plaintiff by his will. The testator was the divided brother of the plaintiffs father; and managed, the properties which she inherited, during her minority. Before his death, the testator bequeathed a portion of the properties which he was then managing to the 2nd defendant; by the same instruments he gave the plaintiff Rs. 800. She now sues to recover the devised inherited property and also the legacy of Rs. 800, The 8th issue in the case raises the question of election. In our opinion, the doctrine is applicable to the present case. The weight of authority in England is to regard the doctrine as based on the principle of compensation and not on that of forfeiture. See Ker v. Wauchope (1819) 1 Bligh, H.L. 1 : 4 L.R. 1 and Rancliffe (Lord) v. Parkyns (1818) 6 Dow. 149. The fact that the 2nd defendant may be compelled at the instance of the reversioners to give up the property after the life-time of the plaintiff, whereas she will have an absolute right in the Rs. 800 bequeathed to her is not a ground for not applying the doctrine of election. The quantum of compensation is not what the