The Doctrine of Election : Section 35 of Transfer of property Act, 1882

Meaning & Origin:

The Doctrine of Election is a rule of equity, justice, and good conscience. It means that a person cannot both accept and reject the same instrument or transaction. If a person receives a benefit under a legal document, they must also accept the associated burdens of that document.

This principle originates from the equitable maxim:
Allegans contraria non est audiendus (a person cannot be heard to say two contradictory things).

Section 35, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section 35 provides that:

• If a person, who has no authority to transfer a property, attempts to do so and simultaneously confers a benefit on the real owner, the real owner must choose (elect):
  • Either to allow the transfer and accept the benefit, or
  • To reject the transfer and also give up the benefit.

Conditions for Application:

To invoke the Doctrine, the following must exist:

• Unauthorized Transfer: A person (transferor) attempts to transfer property they do not legally own.
• Benefit Conferred: The same transferor grants a benefit to the actual owner as part of the same document or transaction.
• Single Transaction: Both the transfer and the benefit must arise from the same legal instrument.
• Choice Required: The owner must choose to either accept the benefit and allow the transfer, or reject the transfer & forfeit the benefit.
• Intention of Transferor: The benefit must be intended as compensation or inducement to secure the owner’s acceptance of the unauthorized transfer.

Consequences of Election

If the owner uses or enjoys the benefit for two years without formally accepting or rejecting it, it is presumed that they have impliedly accepted the transaction. This is particularly relevant in practical, long-standing arrangements.

Exception to the Doctrine:

• Independent Benefit: If the benefit is independent of the transaction, the owner can retain it without validating the unauthorized transfer.
• Lack of Knowledge: If the owner was unaware of the circumstances or implications, acceptance for the benefit may not count as an election.
• Inaction for Over a Year: If no decision is made within one year, the transferor can demand a response. Continued inaction may be treated as implied consent.
• Disability: If the owner is under disability (e.g., minor, mentally ill), the election is postponed until the disability ends or a guardian makes the decision.
• Fraud or Undue Influence: If the election was made due to fraud, coercion, or undue influence, it is not valid.

Case Laws:

Practical Examples:

Rationale Behind the Doctrine:

• Prevents inconsistent behavior.
• Promotes certainty in property transactions.
• Protects the interest of innocent transferees and ensures fairness.

Conclusion:

The Doctrine of Election ensures that one cannot cherry-pick benefits from a transaction while rejecting its burdens. It enforces consistency, integrity, and equitable behavior in property dealings.