1|Page ANSHUL RAMESH

ESTOPPEL

Deshpande v Deshpande [AIR 1954 SC 82]

Facts: The case is about a dispute between Gangabai and the plaintiff on the one hand and the
defendant on the other hand in regard to the validity of the adoption of the plaintiff. The dispute
was referred to an arbitrator, who stated the following: It is declared that the adoption of the
plaintiff is not valid. It is declared that the right of adoption is lost to Gangabai from the very
beginning. It is declared that the plaintiff is not and can never become entitled to the property
belonging to the family of Devarao. The Arbitrator also added that if Gangabai and the plaintiff
were to agree to the aforesaid conclusions, they would be paid Rs. 8000 as one-time payments by
the defendant. Plaintiffs agreed to the compromise and the arbitral award was decreed.
Subsequently, Gangabai again adopted the plaintiff and the plaintiff then filed the instant suit
against the defendant claiming rights over familial property. Defendant contended that the claim
was barred by estoppel, owing to the compromise earlier agree upon.

Issue: Whether Plaintiff’s claim was barred by estoppel?

Held: Estoppel: Section 115, IEA. Consent decree declared that Gangabai’s right to adopt was lost
from the very beginning and, therefore, no subsequent right to adopt could arise. Situations may
arise, in which a contract should be held an estoppel, as in certain cases where only an inadequate
right of action would, if the estoppel were not allowed, exist in favour of the injured party. In such
a case the estoppel may sometimes be available to prevent fraud and circuity of action. On a true
construction of the consent decree, the plaintiffs had represented that no such right to adoption
existed, based on which, a sum of Rs. 8000 was paid by the defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim
barred by estoppel.

Shreedhar v Munireddy [AIR 2003 SC 578]

Facts: Plaintiff’s (P1) lands were acquired under a certain statute. He was subsequently re-granted
this land. However, he gave consent for such re-grant to be made to his son (D3). When D3 sold
off a part of the land and P1 was sought to be dispossessed by the new owners, P1 filed a suit
claiming for a declaration to be made that he was the absolute owner of the suit. Prior to the filing
of the instant suit, multiple judicial proceedings had taken place between D3 and the new owners
of the land.
2|Page ANSHUL RAMESH

Issue: Whether P1’s claim would be barred by estoppel under Section 115?

Held: P1 is barred by estoppel. An estoppel is not a cause of action, it is a rule of evidence which
precludes a person from denying the truth of some statement previously made by himself . In the
multiple litigations that had taken place prior to the present suit, he had never raised such claim,
as should rightly have. Even if he weren’t party to some of those suits, having lived jointly with
his son, he could be presumed to have knowledge of such proceedings. By not raising such claims
at the appropriate point of time, he is estopped from raising his claim in the instant suit.

The essential factors giving rise to an estoppel are:

(1) A representation or conduct amounting to a representation intended to induce a course of

conduct on the part of the person to whom the representation was made.
(2) An act or omission resulting from the representation, whether actual or by conduct, by the
person to whom the representation was made.
(3) Detriment to such person as a consequence of the act or omission where silence cannot
amount to a representation, but, where there is a duty to disclose, deliberate silence may
become significant and amount to a representation.
If a man either by words or by conduct has intimated that he consents to an act which has been
done and that he will not offer any opposition to it, although it could not have been lawfully done
without his consent, and he thereby induces others to do that which they otherwise might have
abstained form, he cannot question legality of the act he had sanctioned to the prejudice of those
who have so given faith to his words or to the fair inference to be drawn from his conduct.”