Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In Trayner's Latin Maxims, this maxim is referred to at page 41 of the 4th Edition as follows:

Allegans contraria non-est audiendus: He is not to be heard who alleges things contradictory of each other. For example no one can be heard to maintain that a deed is invalid as regards some obligation, which it imposes on him, and yet valid in so far as it confers upon him a right. In other words, no one is permitted at the same time, to approbate and reprobate. It must be kept in view, however, that this does not militate against what is fair alternate pleading."
In support of the above contention, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants herein relied upon a ruling reported in B.S. Lail v. Sardar Mal Lalwani, , in which their Lordships were pleased to hold in para 8 as under :
"8. In my opinion the contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant is correct and ought to be accepted. It is well settled that a party cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the maxim "allegans contraria non est audiendus" it mean she shall not be heard who says things contradictory to each other. The maxim applies to proceedings in Court; it creates a sort of estoppel. Bigelow on Estoppel, six Edition, states the principle as follows:

We hold that the same Maxim is not applicable to the present set of facts. We have given elaborate reasons stating that the first notice was given and no body had acted upon the said notice. Therefore, the very foundation of approbates and reprobates are not applicable to the present set of facts. All the parties to the suit understood and acted holding that the partnership is not dissolved.

23. Applying the aforesaid test to the present set of facts, we hold that the partnership continued even after giving the first notice, not only continued but also the plaintiff participated in the business actively as stated supra.