A significant reaffirmation of the doctrine against contradictory litigation stands has been delivered by the Madras High Court, dismissing a writ appeal where the appellant sought to reverse a prior judicial order that had mandated cancellation of sale deeds and refund of consideration. The judgment underscores the legal principle that parties cannot approbate and reprobate - accepting the benefit of one legal position while later rejecting it for tactical advantage.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, P. Selvarani, purchased two residential plots measuring 143 sq.m. and 137.30 sq.m., designated as Plot Nos. B68 and B69, under the Small and Medium Town Scheme (SMT Scheme) from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The sale deeds were executed on 27.06.2007. Subsequently, the appellant discovered that a High Tension Transmission Line passed through the plots, rendering them unsuitable for residential use.
Key Facts
- The appellant filed W.P.No.19611 of 2010 seeking cancellation of the sale deeds and allotment of alternate plots of equal size.
- The prayer in W.P.No.19611 of 2010 explicitly sought: "cancellation of the allotment and sale of Plot Nos.B-68 & B-69... and consequently allot alternative Plots of same dimensions."
- On 05.12.2019, the Single Judge of the Madras High Court directed the respondents to refund the entire sale consideration with 6% interest per annum from the date of the sale deeds, subject to the appellant cooperating in the cancellation of the two sale deeds.
- The appellant did not file any appeal against the 05.12.2019 order, which became final.
- The third respondent, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, filed Cont.P.No.2236 of 2022 alleging non-compliance with the 05.12.2019 order.
- On 21.04.2023, the contempt petition was dismissed with the observation that the Board, as the party directed to act, could not file contempt against the appellant for non-cooperation.
- On 22.06.2025, the appellant filed W.P.No.18741 of 2025 seeking a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the respondents to sell the plots to a third party, effectively reversing her prior position.
Procedural History
- 27.06.2007: Sale deeds executed for Plot Nos. B68 and B69
- 2010: W.P.No.19611 of 2010 filed seeking cancellation of sale deeds and alternate plot allotment
- 05.12.2019: Single Judge orders refund of sale consideration with 6% interest, subject to cancellation of sale deeds
- 22.08.2022: Contempt Petition No.2236 of 2022 filed by third respondent
- 21.04.2023: Contempt petition dismissed; court held filing by Housing Board impermissible
- 15.06.2025: W.P.No.18741 of 2025 filed seeking NOC to sell plots
- 27.06.2025: Single Judge dismisses W.P.No.18741 of 2025, directs cancellation of sale deeds and refund
- 28.03.2026: Writ Appeal No.1000 of 2026 filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent
- 30.04.2026: Division Bench dismisses writ appeal
Relief Sought
The appellant sought issuance of a No Objection Certificate to sell the plots to a third party, effectively seeking to retain possession while avoiding the obligation to cancel the sale deeds and accept refund. The respondents sought enforcement of the 05.12.2019 order.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a litigant who has obtained a judicial order mandating cancellation of sale deeds and refund of consideration can, without challenging that order, subsequently approach the court for a contradictory relief - namely, permission to sell the same property to a third party.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the original writ petition was filed solely to secure an alternate plot due to non-disclosure of the transmission line, and that the refund direction was incidental. He contended that since the respondents failed to refund the amount, the appellant was entitled to retain the plots and seek an NOC to sell them. He relied on principles of equity and the respondents’ inaction to justify the new claim.
For the Respondent
The Government Advocate and Standing Counsel submitted that the appellant’s current claim directly contradicted the relief sought and granted in W.P.No.19611 of 2010. They emphasized that the 05.12.2019 order was final, unchallenged, and binding. The respondents further pointed out that the appellant’s conduct amounted to approbation and reprobation, which is legally impermissible.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench conducted a meticulous review of the pleadings and orders in both proceedings. It held that the prayer in W.P.No.19611 of 2010 was unequivocal: cancellation of the sale deeds and allotment of alternate plots. The court noted that the relief granted on 05.12.2019 was not an incidental or alternative outcome but the direct consequence of the relief sought.
"The appellant cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold and the petitioner having already taken a stand for cancellation of the Sale Deed and for refund of the amount, cannot be allowed to turn around and now seek for permission of the Housing Board to sell the plot."
The court emphasized that the doctrine of approbate and reprobate is a well-established principle of equity and good conscience, preventing parties from taking inconsistent positions for personal advantage. The appellant’s failure to appeal the 05.12.2019 order rendered it final and binding. The court further observed that the contempt petition dismissal did not nullify the underlying order; it merely clarified that the Board could not initiate contempt against the appellant for non-cooperation.
The court also clarified that its jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is limited to reviewing the correctness of the Single Judge’s order, not to re-appreciate facts. No error of law or fact was found in the impugned order.
The Verdict
The writ appeal was dismissed. The Division Bench upheld the order dated 27.06.2025, directing the appellant to cancel the sale deeds within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order. Upon cancellation, the respondents are directed to refund the entire sale consideration along with 6% interest per annum from 27.06.2007, within four weeks thereafter. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Contradictory Relief Is Not Permissible
- Practitioners must advise clients that seeking inconsistent reliefs in successive litigation will be summarily dismissed under the doctrine of approbate and reprobate.
- A party cannot benefit from a court order and then later seek to undo its effect without challenging it through proper appellate channels.
Finality of Orders Must Be Respected
- Unchallenged judicial orders attain finality and bind the parties regardless of subsequent conduct or inaction by the opposite party.
- Non-compliance by the opposite party does not validate a new, contradictory claim unless the original order is set aside.
Strategic Litigation Requires Consistency
- Lawyers must carefully draft pleadings and avoid ambiguous or dual-prayer structures that may later be construed as contradictory.
- If a party is dissatisfied with a remedy granted, the correct course is to appeal - not to file a new petition seeking the opposite outcome.
