Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1) AIR 1956 SC 593 (Nagubai Ammal and others vs. B.Shama Rao and others) 21. ... The observations of Scrutton, L. J. on which the appellants rely are as follows:
"A plaintiff is not permitted to 'approbate and reprobate'. The phrase is apparently borrowed from the Scotch law, where it is used to express the principle embodied in our doctrine of election-namely, that no party can accept and reject the same instrument: Ker v. Wauchope: Douglas-Menzies v. Umphelby. The doctrine of election is not however confined to instruments. A person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage. That is to approbate and reprobate the transaction".

It is clear from the above observations that the maxim that a person cannot 'approbate and reprobate' is only one application of the doctrine of election, and that its operation must be confined to reliefs claimed in respect of the same transaction and to the persons who are parties thereto. The law is thus stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume XIII, page 454, para 512:

"On the principle that a person may not approbate and reprobate, a species of estoppel has arisen which seems to be intermediate between estoppel by record and estoppel in pais, and may conveniently be referred to here. Thus a party cannot, after taking advantage under an order (e.g. payment of costs) be heard to say that it is invalid and ask to set it aside, or to set up to the prejudice of persons who have relied upon it a case inconsistent with that upon which it was founded; nor will he be allowed to go behind an order made in ignorance of the true facts to the prejudice of third parties who have acted on it".

(2) AIR 1961 SC 1327 (Bhau Ram vs. Baij Nath Singh and others) 7. It seems to us however, that in the absence of some statutory provision or of a well-recognised principle of equity, no one can be deprived of his legal rights including a statutory right of appeal. The phrase "approbate and reprobate" is borrowed from Scots Law where it is used to express the principle embodied in the English doctrine of election, namely, that no party can accept and reject the same instrument (per Scrutton, L. J., in Verschures Creameries v. Hull and Neitherlands Steamship Co. Ltd.). The House of Lords further pointed out in Lissenden v. C. A. V. Bosch, Ltd. that the equitable doctrine of election applies only when an interest is conferred as an act of bounty by some instrument. In that case they held that the withdrawal by a workman of the compensation money deposited by the employer could not take away the statutory, right of appeal conferred upon him by the Workmen's Compensation Act. Lord Maugham, after pointing out the limitations of the doctrine of approbate and reprobate observed towards the conclusion of his speech:

113. The learned counsel for the defendants would submit that it is not open to the plaintiffs to approbate and reprobate and having accepted the title of the father as exclusive by accepting the gift deed of the mother, it is not open to them to contend that STS has exclusive title over Plot Nos.6 to 8.

114. In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to explain the concept regarding approbate and reprobate:

The maxim qui approbat non reprobat (one who approbates cannot reprobate) is firmly embodied in English Common Law and often applied by Courts in this country. It is akin to the doctrine of benefits and burdens which at its most basic level provides that a person taking advantage under an instrument which both grants a benefit and imposes a burden cannot take the former without complying with the latter. A person cannot approbate and reprobate or accept and reject the same instrument.