Sections 180-183 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
What if a will gives away something that does not belong to the testator, and gives the real owner a benefit elsewhere in the same will? Chapter XXII of Part VI, "Of Election", answers this. The owner may not both keep what is his and take the gift: he must elect. Sections 180 to 183 set out when election arises, what follows from it, and how it works where the testator thought the thing was his own, or where the benefit is given for the owner's sake.
As per the text of the Act consulted, where a person by his will professes to dispose of something which he has no right to dispose of, the person to whom the thing belongs must elect either to confirm the disposition or to dissent from it, and if he dissents, he must give up any benefits provided for him by the will (s.180). An interest so relinquished devolves as if it had not been disposed of in favour of the legatee, subject to the charge of making good to the disappointed legatee the amount or value of the gift attempted to be given to him (s.181). It makes no difference whether the testator believed the thing was his own (s.182). A bequest for a person's benefit counts, for election, as a bequest to him (s.183).
Section 180: when election arises
Section 180 states the rule in one sentence: where a person, by his will, professes to dispose of something which he has no right to dispose of, the person to whom the thing belongs shall elect either to confirm such disposition or to dissent from it, and, in the latter case, he shall give up any benefits which may have been provided for him by the will.
Three elements must be present:
- The testator professes to dispose of a particular thing by his will.
- He had no right to dispose of it, because it belongs to someone else.
- The same will gives that owner a benefit.
The owner then has two choices. He can confirm the disposition: he lets the legatee have his property and keeps the benefit the will gave him. Or he can dissent: he keeps his property and gives up the benefit. He cannot have both.
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 contains a parallel doctrine for transfers between living persons; see our article on section 35 of that Act and check the current law for the corresponding provision. For the position under this Act, if you have been left a benefit and the will also disposes of something of yours, a legal consultation before you accept anything can help, because acceptance can itself amount to a choice; see our article on acceptance of benefit as election.
Section 181: what happens to the interest given up
Section 181 provides that an interest relinquished in the circumstances stated in section 180 shall devolve as if it had not been disposed of by the will in favour of the legatee, subject, nevertheless, to the charge of making good to the disappointed legatee the amount or value of the gift attempted to be given to him by the will.
The effect is double. The property goes back to the owner who elected to keep it. But the person who was meant to receive it (the "disappointed legatee") is not left with nothing: the benefit that the owner gave up is charged with making good the value of what was attempted to be given. The first illustration to section 182 shows the working in figures.
Section 182: the testator's belief does not matter
Sections 180 and 181 apply whether the testator does or does not believe that which he professes to dispose of by his will to be his own. The test is the fact that the thing belongs to someone else, not what the testator thought.
The Act's four illustrations:
| No. | Facts | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (i) | The farm of Sultanpur belonged to C. A bequeathed it to B, giving a legacy of 1,000 rupees to C. C has elected to retain his farm, which is worth 800 rupees | C forfeits his legacy of 1,000 rupees, of which 800 rupees goes to B and the remaining 200 rupees falls into the residuary bequest, or devolves according to the rules of intestate succession, as the case may be |
| (ii) | A bequeaths an estate to B in case B's elder brother (who is married and has children) shall leave no issue living at his death. A also bequeaths to C a jewel, which belongs to B | B must elect to give up the jewel or to lose the estate |
| (iii) | A bequeaths to B 1,000 rupees, and to C an estate which will, under a settlement, belong to B if his elder brother (who is married and has children) shall leave no issue living at his death | B must elect to give up the estate or to lose the legacy |
| (iv) | A, aged 18, domiciled in India but owning real property in England to which C is heir at law, bequeaths a legacy to C and, subject thereto, devises and bequeaths to B all his property whatsoever and wheresoever, and dies under 21 | The real property in England does not pass by the will. C may claim his legacy without giving up the real property in England |
The copy prints "" in square brackets in illustration (iv); the brackets mark inserted or substituted words and the copy does not say by which Act.
Reading illustration (i)
This is the working example for section 181. C owned the farm, worth 800 rupees. The will gave it to B and gave C a legacy of 1,000 rupees. C elects to keep the farm. He therefore gives up the 1,000 rupees. Of that sum, 800 rupees go to B, to make good the value of the farm B was meant to get, and the remaining 200 rupees go to the residue or to the persons entitled on intestacy. The charge on the relinquished benefit is limited to the value of the gift attempted to be given.
Reading illustrations (ii) and (iii)
Both involve a contingent right. In (ii), the estate is bequeathed to B on a condition, and the jewel that the will gives to C belongs to B. B must choose: give up the jewel or lose the estate. In (iii), the position is reversed: the estate given to C would belong to B under a settlement if the same contingency happens, so B must choose between giving up that estate and losing the legacy. The common thread is that the will purports to dispose of something in which B has a right.
Reading illustration (iv)
In (iv) the testator was under 21 when he died, and the real property in England does not pass by the will. Since the will does not in fact dispose of C's property, no election is needed, and C takes his legacy without giving up the property. The illustration is the Act's own, with its age and places, and is not a statement about modern law.
Section 183: a bequest for a person's benefit
Section 183 provides that a bequest for a person's benefit is, for the purpose of election, the same thing as a bequest made to himself. The copy prints the section's text starting with a lower-case "a" after the heading; it is a printing feature.
The Act's illustration: the farm of Sultanpur Khurd being the property of B, A bequeathed it to C, and bequeathed another farm called Sultanpur Buzurg to his own executors with a direction that it should be sold and the proceeds applied in payment of B's debts. B must elect whether he will abide by the will, or keep his farm of Sultanpur Khurd in opposition to it.
The benefit to B here is indirect: B's debts are paid, but nothing is paid to B. The section treats it as the same as a gift to B himself. Contrast section 184, in the next article, which deals with a person who derives a benefit only indirectly and is not put to election; see our article on who is not put to election.
Examples with invented names
Section 180. Balraj's will gives "my neighbour's orchard" to his nephew Chetan, and gives the neighbour, Devika, 5 lakh rupees. The orchard is Devika's, not Balraj's. Devika must elect: confirm the gift of the orchard to Chetan and keep the 5 lakh rupees, or keep her orchard and give up the legacy.
Section 181. If Devika keeps the orchard, the 5 lakh rupees go back to the estate, but Chetan, the disappointed legatee, is made good out of that sum to the amount or value of the orchard he was to receive. If the orchard is worth less than 5 lakh rupees, the balance goes to the residue or to those entitled on intestacy.
Section 182. Balraj honestly believed the orchard was his. Under section 182 that belief does not matter.
Section 183. Balraj's will pays off a loan Devika owes a bank, as a benefit to her. Under section 183 this counts, for election, as a bequest made to Devika.
Where the sections apply
Schedule III lists sections 180 to 183 among the sections of Part VI that section 57 applies to the wills and codicils of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jainas described there. Section 58 as printed says Part VI does not apply to the testamentary succession to the property of any Muhammadan. See our article on wills of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jainas and Schedule III. The print consulted shows amendments only up to the Indian Succession (Amendment) Act, 2002 (26 of 2002); check for later amendments.
Need help with a will that disposes of your property?
If a will purports to give away something that is yours and also gives you a benefit, the choice you make has lasting effects. You can start with a legal consultation before accepting anything.
Key takeaways
- If a will professes to dispose of something that belongs to a legatee, he must elect to confirm or dissent (s.180).
- If he dissents, he gives up the benefits given to him by the will (s.180).
- The relinquished interest devolves as if not disposed of, but is charged to make good the disappointed legatee (s.181).
- The testator's belief about ownership is immaterial (s.182).
- A bequest for a person's benefit counts as a bequest to him for election (s.183).
Read next
- Sections 184 to 186: who is not put to election and the exception
- Sections 187 to 190: acceptance of benefit as election and time to elect
- Sections 177 to 179: legacies to creditors and portioners
- Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: doctrine of election
Disclaimer: Based on an unofficial print of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 showing amendments up to the Indian Succession (Amendment) Act, 2002 (26 of 2002), as consulted on 2 October 2026. It explains the words of the statute only; later amendments, State amendments and rules, court fees and the way courts apply these sections should be checked. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.