A transfers his property to B, worth rupees two lakh and by the same instrument asks B to transfer the property for rupees one lakh to C. If B does not accept the same, the property will revert to A. But before B exercis

This scenario relates to the Doctrine of Election, as provided under Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Doctrine of Election: The foundation of the doctrine of election is that a person taking the benefit of an instrument must also bear the burden, and he must not take under and against the same instrument. Suppose, a property is given to you and in the same deed of gift you are asked to transfer something belonging to you to another person. If you want to take the property you should transfer your property to someone else, otherwise you cannot take the property which is transferred to you by someone. Application to the given case: In the given case, A transfers property worth ₹2 lakh to B and, by the same instrument, asks B to transfer property worth ₹1 lakh to C. If B does not accept this condition, the property will revert to A. Before B exercises his option, A dies. According to the doctrine of election, if the original owner (A) dies before the transferee (B) makes his election, then the heirs of the original owner (A) have to compensate the disappointed transferee (C) from A's property to the extent of the value of the property intended to be transferred to C. Therefore, in this case, since B has not made his option before A's death, the heirs of A have to compensate C from A's property to the extent of ₹1 lakh, which was the value of the property intended by A to be transferred to C. Thus, C can claim the right to compensation of ₹1 lakh from A's property.