A Party Cannot Approve and Disapprove the Same Claim in a Legal Proceeding: Orissa High Court

Orissa High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the partitionability of a property, holding that land which has lost its original character and has been developed with constructed buildings cannot later be claimed as non-partitionable. The Court ruled that the appellant cannot approbate and reprobate in the same proceeding—first accepting that the land was transformed and later arguing that it remains a water body.

"A litigant cannot blow hot and cold in the same proceeding. If a party has admitted that the land was developed and used for construction, it cannot later claim that it remains a tank or non-partitionable property," the High Court ruled while rejecting the appeal filed by Damayanti Sen against the partition decree in favor of Chabirani Sen and others.

The judgment reinforces the principle that a party cannot take contradictory positions at different stages of litigation to evade the legal consequences of prior admissions.

"Can a Developed Property Be Later Claimed as a Water Body? High Court Rejects Inconsistent Plea"

The dispute involved a plot of land (Plot No. 388) in Akatpur Mouza, Balasore District, which was part of a partition suit filed in 1994 by Chabirani Sen (Respondent No.1) against her family members, including the appellant, Damayanti Sen. The plaintiff sought partition of several plots, including Plot No. 388, which was initially a ditch (Gadia) but later filled up and developed with buildings and an ice factory.

The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision in 2003, issuing a preliminary decree for partition. The defendant-appellant, Damayanti Sen, challenged this decision in a second appeal (RSA No. 153 of 2011), which was dismissed in 2016, confirming the partition.

During the final decree proceedings, Damayanti Sen objected to the partition of Plot No. 388, claiming that it was a tank (Jalasaya) and thus non-partitionable. The District Judge rejected this argument, holding that the land had lost its original character and was fit for partition. Challenging this decision, she filed the present appeal.

"The appellant had earlier admitted that the land was developed with shops and an ice factory. She cannot now turn around and claim it remains a water body," the respondents argued.

"Approving and Disapproving the Same Fact is Not Permissible in Law": High Court Cites Doctrine of Estoppel

The High Court noted that in her written statement before the trial court, Damayanti Sen had acknowledged that the land was originally a ditch but was later filled up, leveled, and used for commercial and residential purposes. The Court found that:

•    Shop rooms, houses, and an ice factory were constructed on the land before the suit was filed in 1994.
•    The appellant herself had stated in earlier proceedings that the land was filled with sand and transformed.
•    Her argument that the land remained a tank (Jalasaya) contradicted her own admissions in court.

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. N. Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25, the High Court reiterated that a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate in the same legal proceeding.

"A person cannot accept the benefits of a legal claim while rejecting its corresponding obligations. A party who has admitted facts before the trial court cannot later deny them at the final decree stage," the Court observed.

Rejecting the appellant’s argument that there is no estoppel against the law, the High Court clarified that her case did not involve a legal prohibition on partition but rather a factual inconsistency in her own pleadings.

"Estoppel applies where a party takes one position in a case and later contradicts it to suit their convenience. The appellant cannot claim partition rights in earlier stages and later deny the partitionability of the same land," the judgment stated.

"Final Decree Cannot Modify What the Preliminary Decree Has Settled": High Court Dismisses Appeal

The Court held that since the preliminary decree for partition had been upheld in second appeal, the appellant could not challenge the partitionability of the land at the final decree stage. The High Court reaffirmed that:

"A final decree cannot modify or nullify a preliminary decree that has already attained finality. If the appellant wanted to challenge the partitionability of the land, she should have done so before the preliminary decree was confirmed."

Dismissing the appeal, the Court ruled that the District Judge was correct in ordering partition based on the developed condition of the land.

"There is no legal bar to partitioning Plot No. 388, which has lost its characteristics of a water body. The learned District Judge correctly held that the land is now fit for division among co-owners," the Court concluded.

The appeal was dismissed without costs, affirming the lower court’s decision that the property must be partitioned as per the preliminary decree.

"Legal Proceedings Cannot Be Manipulated Through Changing Claims": High Court Affirms Partition Order

With this ruling, the Orissa High Court has reaffirmed key principles of partition law and litigation conduct: "A litigant cannot change their stance at different stages of the same case to avoid legal consequences. Courts must ensure consistency in legal proceedings to uphold justice."

By preventing the misuse of legal procedures through contradictory claims, the Court has ensured that property disputes are resolved fairly and in accordance with established legal principles.

Date of Decision: 25 February 2025