Madras High Court Evokes Doctrine of Approbate & Reprobate, Holds a Party Can’t Take Contradictory Stands in Different Courts

Post published:March 31, 2022
Post category:Daily Judgments / Madras High Court
Reading time:7 mins read

Madras High Court Evokes Doctrine of Approbate & Reprobate, Holds a Party Can’t Take Contradictory Stands in Different Courts

Case: Mr.G.Nagaiyan & Anr. v. Mr. K. Palanivel

Coram: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh

Case No.: Second Appeal No.125 of 2014 and MP.1 of 2014 and CMP No.3572 of 2022

Court Observation: “… By virtue of this Decree, the respondent has given up his rights and title over the property that was purchased by him under Ex.B3 [sale deed involving vendor Dayalan]. Under such circumstances, it will not be open to the respondent to take a completely contrary stand as if the property was not acquired by the Government and he continues to be the owner of the property. This is where the principle of approbate and reprobate comes into play.”

“A person cannot be allowed to have the benefit of an instrument while questioning the same. Such a party either has to affirm or disaffirm the transaction. This principle has to be applied with more vigour as a common law principle, if such a party actually enjoys the one part fully and on near completion of the said enjoyment, thereafter questions the other part. An element of fair play is inbuilt in this principle. It is also a species of estoppel dealing with the conduct of a party.”

“There is no requirement for this Court to undertake the exercise of finding out how much of property was acquired and how much was left out by the Government. This is in view of the fact that the respondent went before the competent Civil Court and obtained a Decree on the ground that no right or title was conveyed to him under the sale deed dated 27.8.1974 marked as Ex.B3. This crucial fact was lost sight of by both the Courts below and both the Courts unnecessarily undertook the exercise of finding out the ownership of the respondent over the ‘C’ schedule property”

“Insofar as the right claimed by the respondent in the property acquired through Ex.B3 sale deed and the construction put up by him in the said property is concerned, it is for the Government and the Housing Board to initiate appropriate action”

“Both the Courts below on analysing the oral and documentary evidence, have given a categorical finding that there is no evidence to hold that a portion of the property has been constructed in the ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and that the respondent has caused obstruction to the access of the appellant for the convenient enjoyment of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. At every stage, the appellants have attempted to improve their case and only at the appellate stage, the appellants came up with the plea that the building constructed by the respondent is obstructing their pathway right”

Mr.G.Nagaiyan-Anr.-v.-Mr.-K.-Palanivel-31-March-11 Download

Previous Posts

Threshold of Public Interest Must To Prevent Bypassing of Civil Courts for Enforcement of Contractual Obligations: Bombay High Court

Using Term Straight Shooter in Message Doesnt Amount to Extortion or Criminal Intimidation: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Right To Withdraw Notice Of Voluntary Retirement Before Intended Date Lost By Accepting Post-Retiral Benefits: Bombay High Court

CPC Second Appeal Can’t Interfere With Orders Solely On Ground of Sympathy, Substantial Question of Law Must: Delhi High Court

Interest Liability under GST Can’t Be Raised Without Initiating Adjudication Process If Assessee Raises Dispute: Jharkhand High Court

In Absence of Specific Pleading by Party about Self Acquired Suit Property, It Is Presumed To Be Joint Family Property: Karnataka High Court

Can Exercise Writ Jurisdiction against Private Party That Wrongly Benefits From Inaction of Public Authorities in Discharge of Public Duty: Bombay HC