Sections 184-186 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.
Sections 184 to 186 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 sit at the end of the group of sections on election. They say who is not forced to choose between a will and his own property, how a person who holds two capacities may choose in each capacity separately, and one exception where a gift is expressed to be given in place of something the legatee already owns. This article explains the three sections as per the text of the Act consulted.
Under s.184, a person who takes no benefit directly under a will, but gains something under it indirectly, is not put to his election. Under s.185, a person who takes a benefit in his individual capacity may, in another character, elect to take in opposition to the will. Under s.186, where a particular gift is expressed to be in lieu of something belonging to the legatee, which the will also disposes of, a legatee who claims that thing must relinquish the particular gift but not any other benefit the will gives him.
Where these sections fit
The general rule of election is stated in the sections just before this group. We have explained it in our article on the doctrine of election under a will. In short, a testator sometimes disposes by his will of a thing that belongs to someone else, while also giving that person a gift under the same will. The person cannot keep both. He must choose: confirm the will and give up his own claim, or keep his own thing and give up the gift. That choice is called election.
Sections 184, 185 and 186 do not repeat the rule. They mark out its edges. If you are advising a family on whether a legatee must choose, these three sections are the first place to check for a reason why he need not, or why only part of his gift is at stake. For legal advice on a specific will, our legal consultation team can read the document with you.
The sections on election carry no application clause of their own in the text consulted, so this article says nothing about which communities they cover beyond what the Act prints elsewhere. A separate law may apply to the property of a particular family; our guide on intestate succession under the Hindu Succession Act is one starting point where a separate law is in play.
Section 184: a person who benefits only indirectly
Section 184 is a single sentence. A person who takes no benefit directly under a will, but derives a benefit under it indirectly, is not put to his election.
The key words are "directly" and "indirectly". A legatee named in the will is a direct taker. Someone who gains only because of how the will treats somebody else is not. The Act does not define "indirectly" further, so the test is the plain contrast between being named as a taker and benefiting as a side effect.
The Act's illustration
The illustration to s.184 is old and uses an estate called Sultanpur. Here is the position in plain words.
- The lands of Sultanpur are settled on C for life, and after his death on D, his only child.
- A leaves the lands of Sultanpur by his will to B, and gives 1,000 rupees to C.
- C dies intestate shortly after the testator, without having made any election.
- D takes out administration to C. As administrator, D elects on behalf of C's estate to take under the will, receives the legacy of 1,000 rupees, and accounts to B for the rents of the lands of Sultanpur that accrued after the testator's death and before C's death.
- In his individual character, D keeps the lands of Sultanpur against the will.
The illustration shows two capacities in one man. As administrator he follows the will for C's estate. As D, who has no direct gift under the will, he is not put to election and keeps the lands in opposition to it.
Section 185: one person, two characters
Section 185 says that a person who, in his individual capacity, takes a benefit under a will may, in another character, elect to take in opposition to the will. The "character" can be, for example, that of an administrator of someone else's estate, as the illustration shows.
The Act's illustration reads as follows in plain words. The estate of Sultanpur is settled on A for life and after his death on B. A leaves Sultanpur to D, 2,000 rupees to B, and 1,000 rupees to C, who is B's only child. B dies intestate shortly after the testator, without making an election. C takes out administration to B and, as administrator, elects to keep the estate of Sultanpur against the will and to relinquish the legacy of 2,000 rupees. The Act says C may do this and still claim his own legacy of 1,000 rupees under the will.
The point is that the choice made in one capacity does not drag the other capacity along with it.
A fresh example
A will names Arjun as the legatee of a cash sum. His sister Meera is not named as a taker of anything, but she benefits because Arjun now supports the household. Meera takes no benefit directly under the will; at most she benefits indirectly. Applying the printed rule of s.184, she is not put to her election. Whether a person in real life takes directly or only indirectly is decided from the wording of the will, so the will must be read closely.
Section 186: the exception where a gift is in lieu
Section 186 opens with "Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 180 to 185". It then says that where a particular gift is expressed in the will to be in lieu of something belonging to the legatee, which is also in terms disposed of by the will, then:
- if the legatee claims that thing, he must relinquish the particular gift; but
- he is not bound to relinquish any other benefit given to him by the will.
So the loss is limited to the gift that the will itself ties to the thing. This matters when a will gives one person several benefits.
The Act's illustration
Under A's marriage-settlement, his wife is entitled, if she survives him, to the enjoyment of the estate of Sultanpur during her life. By his will A leaves his wife an annuity of 200 rupees during her life, in lieu of her interest in Sultanpur, and leaves Sultanpur to his son. He also gives his wife a legacy of 1,000 rupees. The widow elects to take what she is entitled to under the settlement. The Act says she must relinquish the annuity but not the legacy of 1,000 rupees.
Summary of the three sections
| Section | Who or what it deals with | Rule in the text |
|---|---|---|
| 184 | A person taking no benefit directly, but benefiting indirectly | Not put to his election |
| 185 | A person who takes in his individual capacity | May, in another character, elect to take in opposition to the will |
| 186 | A particular gift expressed to be in lieu of something belonging to the legatee | Legatee who claims that thing relinquishes that gift only, not any other benefit |
What to check in a real will
- Is the gift named in the will? If the person is not a direct taker, s.184 is the first section to look at.
- In what character is the person acting? An administrator acting for someone's estate holds a separate character from his own, as the illustrations to ss.184 and 185 show.
- Does the will say "in lieu"? Section 186 depends on the will itself expressing that the gift is in place of the thing. The words of the will matter.
- What other gifts did he receive? Under s.186, the other gifts survive an election against the will.
On how acceptance of benefit and the passage of time affect the choice, see our article on ss.187-190: acceptance of benefit as election and the time to elect. For the nearby rule on transfers between living persons, see Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on the doctrine of election.
Need help with a question of election under a will?
If a will gives a family member something while disposing of what already belongs to him, the first task is to read the will and the earlier documents side by side. Our team can review both and explain the choice before anyone acts. Start with a legal consultation and bring the will, the settlement or title papers, and a list of who received what.
Key takeaways
- Section 184: a person who gains only indirectly under a will is not put to his election.
- Section 185: a person who takes in his individual capacity may, in another character, elect to take in opposition to the will.
- Section 186: a gift expressed to be in lieu of a thing the will also disposes of must be relinquished by a legatee who claims the thing; other benefits stay with him.
- The Act's illustrations use old sums (1,000, 2,000 and 200 rupees) and an estate called Sultanpur; they explain the rule and are not current examples.
- The copy consulted shows amendments up to the Indian Succession (Amendment) Act, 2002 (26 of 2002); later amendments should be checked.
Read next
- Sections 180-183: the doctrine of election under a will
- Sections 187-190: acceptance of benefit as election and time to elect
- Section 191: gift made in contemplation of death
- Ambiguous clauses in a will: patent, latent and inconsistent provisions
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.