A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION

Introduction
The concept of doctrine of election is acknowledged in “transfer of Property Act 1882” which is mentioned in section 35. However, in “Indian Succession Act” it is mentioned in within 180-190 sections. “Election” means it is a choice between two differing or two contradictory rights. In this concept you cannot have both you can choose either of them. It is basically on the prioritize manner that “one is higher than the other1.” The claimant can’t use both, the beneficiary must opt among two differing or contradictory rights. Generally, its confers that the person whose is taking profit “should also bear the burden. “To resolving the property conflicts between the parties is the main aim of the “transfer of property act 1882.”

The idea of elections is not a novel one to the populace or society. It is a notion that citizens of a democracy are very accustomed to. Election is the process of selecting one representative from a field of two or more contenders. In other words, voting in elections entails selecting the individuals who will control public affairs. The idea of elections is considerably older. In the Middle Ages, it was originally employed in Greece and Rome to choose the ruler from a wide range of contending candidates. The earliest election ever held in India took place during the Vedic era when the populace chose the ruler of several tribes, including Gana and others. The earliest known popular election of representatives to public office took place at Sparta in 754 B.C. The word “election” was first employed in the mediaeval era by individuals in Greece and Rome. The primary goal of incorporating this idea into the play was to eliminate autocracy or dictatorship from society and to advance democracy and fair elections. The Doctrine of Election has been embraced by many nations in an effort to increase justice and openness in the selection of candidates for public office.
Election procedures are not new to any nations in the world. Elections have become the standard method used by many nations to choose their representatives for public office. Many nations also have an electoral commission department that is in charge of governing and establishing certain guidelines for candidates running in elections. In some, both election administration and vote counting fall under the purview of the election commission. The relevance of electoral commission rises in nations like the United States, India, Canada, etc. In a democracy, a person or group of people forms the government on the basis of the results of elections. Compared to a democratic nation, the electoral theory may not hold as much weight in a dictatorship. In terms of state governance, the terms election and democracy are synonymous.


Direct Elections
Direct Election indicates that the owner is prepared for the transaction without any issues. Simply exchanging verbal or written communications can do this.
Rahul, for instance, wants the property to sell. If you agree to sell the property to Mira, Geeta promises to offer you one hundred thousand rupees.
In the aforementioned case, a direct election would occur if Rahul merely agreed to sell the property to Mira.

Indirect Elections
After the transaction, it is challenging to return it to the original owner, thus the indirect election in this owner has some conditions, such as the person must have full understanding of the conditions.
This status lasts for two years and cannot be changed.
As an illustration, suppose A has property worth Rs. 1 L, and B promises to provide him Rs. 2 L. if Z will buy it from him.
In the aforementioned scenario, if A places some conditions on selling, the person who is buying must meet them before he will sell it. A conditional election is one that is indirect. It is up to the owner to accept or reject it.

What consequences result from choosing not to transfer?
If the property owner rejects the transfer of his property. He must relinquish the benefits granted to him; otherwise, the transferor or his legal agents would receive the benefit originally intended for him.


Elections when needed (section 35)
Give up his right to property in order to transfer it.
In the event he doesn’t, they must choose whether to accept it or not in the same transaction.
Until then, he must release the advantages.
The benefits he had up until that point return to the transferor as though they were never given.
Even if he must at least pay amends to the transferee when benefits are returned, this is possible in the following circumstances:
when a transfer is voluntary, and the transferor is deceased or otherwise unable to complete another transfer.
Transfer is a possibility.
Example: The farmhouse in Udaipur belongs to C. A pledges to give B $100,000 as a gift. Despite the fact that A forfeits his gift and C now wants to keep his farmhouse, he accepts it. As a result, B passed away, and his executor now owes C $100,000.

Exceptions to the Election Doctrine
The owner is not required to give up any further benefits he obtains from the transaction if he chooses to keep the property when given the choice between doing so and accepting a certain benefit. If the original owner accepts the benefit and is aware of his obligations and the factors that may lead a wise man to do so, it will be assumed that he has chosen to legitimise the transfer.
If the recipient of the benefit uses it for a duration of more than two years, it can be inferred that they are aware of the circumstances.

After a year has passed since the property was transferred, the transferor will force the original owner to choose his option. The original owner shall be deemed to have chosen the validation of the property transfer as his decision even after the reasonable period has passed if he does not additionally still elect. If a person is a minor, the election process must be postponed until they reach the age of majority unless they are represented by a guardian.

Section 35 specifies
If the person receiving the service knows the service, accepting the service signifies that person’s confirmation of the transfer. It is required to select and be aware of factors that will influence voters’ decisions if one does not adjust to the situation. If the individual receiving the service has utilised it for two years without making an effort to explain their disagreement, it is presumed that they are aware of it or reject it if the opposing evidence is absent. It is also impossible to put those who are interested in the property that is thought to be transferred in the identical circumstances as if the action was not taken because Section 35 states that this knowledge or rejection can be inferred from any action by that person.

Lakhi Narain Mitter v. Paramada Dasi [1885] ILR 12 Cal 60
In this instance, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in 1873 to have her maintenance claim enforced against the ancestral home. The court found that the plaintiff plainly made her choice in the current instance and chose to receive maintenance from the property before the property was allocated to her nephew. She must have been aware that this upkeep was being given to her rather than her ancestral home. As a result, she is no longer able to seek to recover the ancestral property that was sold to the defendant in the current case.

Conclusion

Election is the process of selecting between two options or rights that conflict. You can select one of them by granting two rights, one of which is higher than the other. Both are not compatible. The receiver must pick between two inconsistencies or alternative rights; the applicant is not permitted to exercise both. This basically means that the weight falls on the recipient as well. originating from the equity principle, which states unequivocally that one cannot have gained from both sides. This theory has been effective in resolving numerous conflicts related to poverty.

1. References
Jus Corpus Law Journal, Doctrine of election under TPA, 1882
https://www.juscorpus.com/doctrine-of-election-under-tpa-1882/
Law Legum, Doctrine of Election
https://lawlegum.com/doctrine-of-election-section-35-of-tpa/
I pleaders, Doctrine of election and it’s Incorporation
https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-election-and-its-incorporation/
Law Times Journal, what is doctrine of election
https://lawtimesjournal.in/what-is-doctrine-of-election/

Aishwarya Says:

Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

We do conduct several Courses, Quizs and Webinars, Click here to register

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

Join our Whatsapp group for Legal Job Openings




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: