Transfer of Property Act

Introduction

This is a leading case on doctrine of election provided under Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TOPA). In this case Lord Heather (House of Lords) explained the principle of doctrine of election.

Facts

• Harold Cooper (husband) married with Vera (wife) in 1933. They had two children.
• Harold makes four policies with his own name and Vera; the wife was the beneficiary of all such policies.
• There was a legal separation between them, and they had an agreement. As per this agreement wife took the family home and an automobile, and Husband took shop of tools and equipment.
• After that the decree of divorce was granted by the court.
• After the divorce both the husband-and-wife remarriage with another persons. After remarriage the husband changed the beneficiary’s name of three policies. Now his new wife (Ida) was the beneficiary of all 3 policies.
• One of the policies was left signed by wife but was not signed by husband.
• After some time husband (Harold) had died.

Issue Involved

• Whether vera and his children have a vested interest over the property?

Observation

• The House of Lords held that there is always an obligation on the person who accepted the benefits with their own consent, and the donor has the right to reject or dispose of it if it is inaccurate, false or misleading.
• It was stated that in this situation, whoever benefits has some obligations as well.
• Vera had no interest over the policies after the death of Harold because Harold’s obligation for her support and under the terms of the divorce decree, terminated upon her remarriage.
• The principle of the doctrine of election was explained by the House of Lords in following words:
• “... there is an obligation on him who takes a benefit under a will or other instrument to offer full effect thereto instrument under which he takes a benefit ; and if it’s found that instrument purports to affect something which it had been beyond the facility of the donor or settlor to eliminate, but to which effect are often given by the concurrence of him who receives a benefit under an equivalent instrument, the law will impose on him who takes the benefit the requirement of carrying the instrument into full and complete force and effect.”