Doctrine of election prevents a will beneficiary from asserting inconsistent ownership, while permissive office occupation creates no life interest.

Property held in a spouse's name is described as excluded from the statutory definition of a benami transaction, allowing a claim that the other spouse was the exclusive owner. The notes explain that a beneficiary who accepts benefits under a will cannot assert an inconsistent proprietary claim, applying the doctrine of election; the legal representative cannot claim more than the beneficiary could have claimed. A permission to maintain an office does not create a life interest without clear dispositive language. Where occupation remains permissive, title is undisputed, and permission is terminated, vacant possession may be sought through mandatory injunction despite its substantive effect of recovering possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assertion that the mother was merely a name lender and the father held absolute title to the property was barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988; (ii) whether the father had absolute title to the property and it was consequently available for partition; (iii) whether the will created a life interest in favour of the defendant over the office portion; and (iv) whether a suit for mandatory injunction seeking vacant possession was maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the assertion that the mother was merely a name lender and the father held absolute title to the property was barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Analysis: Property held in the name of a spouse is expressly excluded from the statutory definition of a benami transaction. The transaction was therefore outside the prohibition invoked against the claim of the father's exclusive ownership.

Conclusion: The plea of the father's exclusive title was not barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Issue (ii): Whether the father had absolute title to the property and it was consequently available for partition.

Analysis: The mother's attestation of the will, her omission to include the property in her subsequent will, and the resolution acknowledging and accepting the contents of the father's will established her knowledge and acceptance that she was only a name lender. Further, having accepted a benefit under the will while it disposed of the property as belonging exclusively to the father, she could not assert an inconsistent proprietary claim under the doctrine of election. Her legal representative could not raise a claim unavailable to her.

Conclusion: The father was the exclusive owner of the property, which was not partible among the children.

Issue (iii): Whether the will created a life interest in favour of the defendant over the office portion.

Analysis: The will only permitted the defendant to maintain his office for as long as he wished and required removal of the office articles thereafter to the separate property bequeathed to him. The office portion was absolutely bequeathed to the plaintiffs, subject only to the mother's life interest. The office had ceased functioning and was abandoned.

Conclusion: No life interest or other proprietary interest in the office portion was created in favour of the defendant.

Issue (iv): Whether a suit for mandatory injunction seeking vacant possession was maintainable.

Analysis: The defendant's occupation remained permissive under the will, the plaintiffs' title was not disputed, and termination notice was followed by institution of the suit within a reasonable period. A claim effectively seeking possession is not to be denied merely because it is framed as one for mandatory injunction, particularly where no independent right accrued to the permissive occupant.

Conclusion: The suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable, and the plaintiffs were entitled to vacant possession of the office portion.

Final Conclusion: The partition claim failed because the property formed part of the father's exclusive estate, while the permissive occupant was bound to vacate the office portion.

Ratio Decidendi: A beneficiary who accepts a benefit under a will must elect to affirm the will and cannot assert a proprietary right inconsistent with the testator's disposition; permissive occupation under such will does not create a life interest absent clear dispositive language.

---