DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL UNDER THE INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT

INTRODUCTION-
The Estoppel is based on the principles of equity, justice and good
conscience. Its main objective is to protect the interests of the parties to
the suit from deceit and fraudulent acts while promoting goodwill and
honesty. Although the Estoppel is the rule of evidence, but it is a
substantive rule of evidence. This principle is bound by the
representation made by him or rising out of his conduct. Estoppel is the
base on the maxim, “Allegan contrarian non est audients” which means
that a person alleging contradictory facts should not be heard and is the
species of “presumption juris et de juris” it means that the fact presume
is taken in to consider to be true against the party stating the same.
The principle of Estoppel was first time used in the case of “Pickard v.
Sears, Court held that “a person by his words or any conduct induces to
another person to believe a fact and its subsequently acts according to
that belief or to alter his previous position, the accused is barred from
later changing his position”.
Estoppel deals with in Section 115 to 117 of Indian Evidence Act 1872
and Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act talks about the general principle
of estoppel by the conduct, Meanwhile Section 116 and 117 are contains
instance of estoppel by conduct. The following are the example of
Estoppel in other Acts pf our country – Section 49 of the Registration
Act 1908, Section 53,27,41,43,49 of the Transfer of Property Act,
Section 24 & 93 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, Section 18 of the
Specific Relief Act & Section 28 of the Partnership Act NAT.1
WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL UNDER THE INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT-
When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally
caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to
act upon such belief neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in
any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his
representative, to deny the truth of that thing .

Estoppel is not a rule of equity or law, but a rule of evidence which is

based on the maxim Allegan’s Contrarian non-Est addendums which
means person alleging contrary facts will not be heard. The Doctrine of
Estoppel is founded on the famous English case Pickard Vs Sears (1837)
6 A & E 475, stating the principle that it is inequitable and unjust to
allow a person to deny the truth of a statement which he has made to
another and the other person has acted on it believing it to be true. The
object of this doctrine is to protect and prevent fraud and secure justice
between parties by promotion of honesty and good faith.

The principle lays down that a man cannot approbate and reprobate or
that a man cannot blow hot and cold at the same time or that a man shall
not be allowed to say one thing at a time and different things at other
times. It must be noted that estoppel is only a rule of civil action with
limited application in criminal proceedings.

According to this doctrine, there are certain facts which the parties are
prohibited from proving. Estoppel is a principle of law by which a
person is held bound by the representation made by him or arising out of
his conduct. The Indian Evidence Act deals with this doctrine from
Section 115 to 117. While Section 115 enumerates the principle of
estoppel by conduct, Section 116 and 117 are instances of estoppel by
contract.

Illustration : A, intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain

land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it. The land
afterwards becomes the property of A , and A seeks to set aside the sale
on the ground that at the time of the sale, he had no title. Applying the
doctrine : He must not be allowed to prove his want to title .

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 115 OF THE INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT-

In order to bring a case within the ambit of estoppel as defined in

Section 115 there are certain essential ingredients that must be satisfied.
These essential conditions are :
A. There must have been representation by a person to another
person, which may be in the form of a declaration or an act or an
omission. In Surat Chunder Dey vs Gopal Chander Laha (1892) 19
IA 203, the Court held that the person who is estopped may not
have the intention to deceive, the estoppel will none the less
operate in such cases.

B. Such representation must have been of the existence of fact, and

not of future promises or intention.

C. The representation must have been meant to have been relied

upon.

D. There must have been belief on the part of the other party in its
truth.
 E. There must have been some action on the faith of that declaration,
act or omission. In other words, such declaration, etc., must have
caused the other party to act on the faith of it and alter his position
to his prejudice or detriment.

F. The misrepresentation or conduct or omission must have been the

proximate cause of eating the other party to act to his prejudice.
Estoppel by conduct may be active or passive. Estoppel by silence
or acquiescence arises only when there is a duty to speak or
disclose.

G. The person claiming the benefit of an estoppel must show that he

was not aware of the true state of things. There can be no estoppel
if such person was aware of the true situation or if he had
reasonable means of such knowledge.

H. Only the person to whom the representation was made or for

whom it was designed, can avail the doctrine of estoppel. The
burden of proving estoppel lies on such person.

I. Where the plea of estoppel is not set up in the pleading it cannot be

availed of later.

J. No action arises on the estoppel itself. It is not a cause of action. It

may assist in enforcing accuse of action .

OVERVIEW OF AN EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY

ESTOPPEL-

Doctrine of estoppel has gained a new dimension in recent years with

the recognition of an equitable doctrine of “promissory estoppel” both
by English and Indian Courts. According to it, if a promise is made in
the expectation that it should be acted upon in the future, and it was in
fact acted upon, the party making the promise will not be allowed to
back out of it. The development of such a principle was easy in Britain
and in USA, where estoppel is a rule of equity ( common law), but in
India it is a rule of law and terms of Section 115 must be strictly
complied with.
The concept of promissory estoppel differs from the concept of estoppel
as contained in Section 115, in that representation in the latter is to an
existing fact, while the former relates to a representation of future
intention. But it has been accepted by the Supreme Court as “advancing
the case of justice”. Though such promise (future) is not supported in
point of law by a consideration, but only by party’s conduct. However, if
promise is made in circumstances involving legal rights and obligation,
it is only proper that the parties should be enforced to do what they
promised. Incases, where the government is one of parties, the Court
will balance the harm to public interest by compelling government to its
promise and see that the government does not act arbitrarily.
The doctrine has variously been described as “equitable estoppel”,
“quasi-estoppel” an “new estoppel”. The doctrine is not really based
upon the principle of estoppel, but it is a doctrine evolved by equity in
order to prevent injustice where a promise made by a person knowing
that it would be acted upon. It is inequitable to allow the party making
the promise to go back upon it. It was therefore held in the case of
M.P.Sugar Mills vs State of U.P. AIR 1979 SC 61, that the doctrine of
promissory estoppel need not be confined to the limitations of estoppel
in the strict sense of the word.

It is substantial to note that, a mere promise to make a gift will not

attract the doctrine of estoppel. It would require a clear and unequivocal
promise to import the doctrine into a matter. A leading institution
intimated the sanction of a loan with a remark that it did not constitute a
commitment on the part of the institution. Held that there was no
promise found to bring into it the doctrine of estoppel, Rabisankar Vs
Orissa State Fin. Corp AIR 1992 Ori. 93.
The promise of the State Government to absorb its village officers
whose posts had been abolished into other services on certain basis, was
not afterwards permitted to be amended by inserting the requirements of
age, which was initially not there in the original commitment, held in the
case of R.K.Rama Rao vs State of A.P. AIR 1987 SC 1467

Further, in another case of Madhuri Patel Vs Addl. Commissioner,

Tribal Development AIR 1995 SC 94 the Supreme Court did not allow
the benefit of the promissory estoppel to a candidate who secured
admission though false caste certificate. It was held that a candidate
obtaining admission to educational course by fraud cannot claim to
continue based on estoppel.

SPECIFIC KINDS OF ESTOPPEL UNDER THE INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT-

A. Estoppel of tenant; and of license of person in possession (sec

116)

This section deals with estoppel arising out of relationships between

1.A tenant and landlord.
2. Between licensee and licensor

Estoppel of tenant-

Under Section 116 a tenant is estoppel to deny the title of the owner
so long the tenancy continues. So long the relation of landlord and
tenant stands and by which the tenant remains in possession of
tenancy the principle of estoppel is applicable against the tenant.
The rule applies “during the continuance of the tenancy.” After the
expiry of the period of tenancy or the tenancy is surrendered by the
tenant there is no application of estoppel. But the tenancy is
obtained by fraud etc. the tenant cannot be estopped. The estoppel
of the tenant is natural consequence, on proof of relationship of
landlord and tenant remains bound by it irrespective of any change
in the line of succession in the landlord’s family.

The rule of estoppel does not apply to a tenant who subsequently

purchases a share of the co-sharer. The equitable right of a person
who has purchased certain premises cannot be questioned by the
tenant even if the purchaser has not yet become the registered
owner. After the tenancy has ceased the tenant is free to deny the
title of the landlord.

Defendant categorically admitted in written statement that his father

was a tenant of the plaintiff-society. After death of father the
defendant became tenant. Tenant once having admitted tenancy is
estopped from challenging title of landlord. Once the defendant
tenant had acknowledged the title of the plaintiff landlord, the case
may not strictly fall under section 116, but the general principle of
estoppel would apply.

A tenant due to ignorance of law paid rent to a third person will not
stand as estoppel against tenant from denying derivative title of third
party and from rendering rent to real landlord.

Estoppel of licensee-

A licensee who has obtained possession through license cannot be

heard to deny the title of licensor. The doctrine of estoppel will
continue so long the relations between the licensor and licensee
continues. Even a person who has got possession of licensed
 premises from father by succession was not permitted to question
the title of the licensor.

B. Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee/licensee (sec

117)-

Section 117 deals with estoppel in respect of movable property. An

estoppel under this section is based on agreement. The section is
supplemented by Sections 41 and 42 of the N.I. Act. It is
applicable to:

(i) Against the acceptor of a bill of exchange.

(ii) Against the bailee, and
(iii) Against a licensee

Acceptor of a bill of exchange-

An acceptor of a bill of exchange is not permitted to deny that the
drawer had authority to draw or to endorse it. But there is an
exception laid down in Explanation-I which provides that the
acceptor of a bill of exchange may deny that the bill was really
drawn by the person by whom it purports to have been drawn.

Bailee-

A bailee of goods cannot be permitted to say that at the time of

commencement of the bailment, the bailor has no authority to bail
or to take them back. Under the Explanation-II, if a bailee delivers
the goods bailed to a person other than the bailer, he may prove
that such person had a right to them as against the bailor. A garage
owner receiving a car for repairs is estopped from challenging the
title of the person from when the car was received.
 License-

Same rule is applicable here as applied in bailment.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL-

There are various exceptions to the doctrine of estoppel, which

cannot be used to enforce the doctrine irrespective of the cause.
These exceptions are essential to keep in mind while applying the
doctrine. The following are the exceptions.

A. No estoppel against a minor-

When a minor represents fraudulently or otherwise that he is of

age and thereby, induces another to enter a contract with him,
then in an action founded on contract, the infant is not estopped
from setting up infancy as a plea. However, equity demands that
he should not retain any benefit which he had obtained by his
fraudulent conduct.

B. When true facts are known to both the parties-

Section 115 does not apply to a case where the statement relied
upon is made to a person who knows the facts and is not misled
by the untrue statement, held in the case of Madnappa v.
Chandramma AIR 1965 SC 1812.

C. Fraud or negligence on the part of the other party-

 If the other party does not believe the representation but
independently of such relief or in cases where the person to
whom representation is made is under a duty to make a photo
enquiry the Estoppel will not operate. Likewise, if there is a
fraud on the part of the other party, which could not be detected
by promise sir with ordinary care, their estoppel will not
operate.

D. When both parties plead estoppel-

If both the parties establish a case for application of estoppel,

then it is as if the police stop is canceling out and the court will
have to proceed as if there is no plea of an estoppel on either
side. Further, if both sides had labored under a mistake however
bona fide or genuine, the plea of an estoppel may not be
available.

E. No estoppel on a point of law-

Estoppel refers only to a belief in a fact . If a person gives his

opinion that law as such 9 and such other acts upon such a
relief, then there can be no estoppel against the former
subsequently asserting that law is different. One cannot be
stopped from challenging the effectiveness of something
(example partition deed) for want of law. Representations under
section 115 should be of facts, not of law or opinion, held in
Union of India v. K.S Subramaniam AIR 1989 SC 662

F. No estoppel against statute-

A rule of law cannot be nullified by resorting to the doctrine of

estoppel. A person who makes a statement as to the existence of
the provisions of the statute is not estopped, subsequently, from
contending that the statutory provision is different from what he
has previously stated for example, where a minor has contracted
 by misrepresenting his age, he still can afterwards disclose his
real age. It is a rule of law of contract that a minor is not
competent to contract and that rule would be defeated if you are
mine or not permitted to disclose his real age. Hence there can
be no estoppel against the provisions of the statute.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION-

Upon critical analysis If a person is given rights under a statute, and he

gives them up at one stage voluntarily and later tries to enforce those
rights, no estoppel can be invoked against him. For example, under the
rent control act, the landlord can demand from his tenant only a standard
rent. If a tenant agreed to pay a higher rent and thereafter filed a petition
for fixing the fair rent, he will not be stopped. The doctrine is an
important principle which protects people against fraud or
misrepresentation. There are several instances where an innocent person
becomes a pre-of false representations made to them by some party.
Sometimes the case mean be Such that the plaintiff suffered huge losses.

This doctrine avoids such situations and charges the person for his
wrongful conduct. This legal principle gives an incentive to every one of
those people who tries to make false representations to other and induces
them to act upon it by planting the faith in them and incur losses as a
result of such false representations, by not performing such acts, else
they would be held liable.