https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197523 A party who, with knowledge of two inconsistent rights, voluntarily accepts the benefit of one and acts on it is barred by the doctrine of election and estoppel from later impeaching the transaction that conferred that benefit. Here, the plaintiff knew a challenge to the compromise was pending, understood that the deposited amount represented the compromise benefit, and nonetheless withdrew it after attaining majority. The Court treated that conduct as affirmation of the compromise and the deed of release, held that full knowledge of every detail was unnecessary, and barred the suit from proceeding. The preliminary objection succeeded and the suit was dismissed with costs. en-us Tue, 07 Aug 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jan 2018 14:28:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197523 A party who, with knowledge of two inconsistent rights, voluntarily accepts the benefit of one and acts on it is barred by the doctrine of election and estoppel from later impeaching the transaction that conferred that benefit. Here, the plaintiff knew a challenge to the compromise was pending, understood that the deposited amount represented the compromise benefit, and nonetheless withdrew it after attaining majority. The Court treated that conduct as affirmation of the compromise and the deed of release, held that full knowledge of every detail was unnecessary, and barred the suit from proceeding. The preliminary objection succeeded and the suit was dismissed with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Aug 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197523