Acknowledgements

Many people assisted me in successfully finishing this project. I want to thank

everyone involved in this initiative. I’d like to thank my Mentor, Mr. Adesh
Pratap Singh, who gave us a very interesting and knowledge testing
assignment of commentary on a case related to the subject of Law of Evidence.
His ideas and comments aided in the completion of this project.

I am grateful to the college administration and library for providing me with

topic-appropriate research material aiding in the completion of this case
comment. Finally, I’d like to express my gratitude to my parents and friends for
their excellent comments and guidance during the completion of this project

-Neelesh Ganguly

5th Semester
 Introduction

The expression 'Estoppel' is derived from the French word 'Estoup' which
means, 'shut the mouth". It states that when a person by declaration (act or
omission) makes or induces another to believe a thing, he cannot deny its truth
subsequently, and thereby the other person cannot be estopped from proceeding
upon such declaration. Estoppel is not a rule of equity or law, but it is a rule of
evidence which is based on the maxim ‘Allegans contraria non est audindus’ i.e.
person alleging contrary facts will not be heard. The doctrine of estoppel is
founded on the famous English case Pickard V. Sears, wherein it was held that,
the principle of doctrine of estoppels is propounded as- where any person
intentionally causes another person to believe by his words or conduct that a
particular thing as the existence and thereby encourages that person to act upon
that belief in such a way that his original situation is changed, then the first
person shall be stopped from stating that the existence of the actual situation
was of different type.

Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 incorporates the meaning of
estoppel as when one person either by his act or omission, or by declaration, has
made another person believe something to be true and persuaded that person to
act upon it, then in no case can he or his representative deny the truth of that
thing later in the suit or in the proceedings. In simple words, estoppel means one
cannot contradict, deny or declare to be false the previous statement made by
him in the Court.
 Principles of Estoppel

Conditions for application of Doctrine of Estoppel

The following conditions are to be satisfied in order to apply the doctrine of

estoppel:

1. The representation must be made by one person to another person.

2. The representation made must be as to facts and not as to the law.
3. The representation must be made as to an existing fact.
4. The representation must be made in a manner which makes the other
person believe that it is true.
5. The person to whom the representation is being made must act upon that
belief.
6. The person to whom the representation would be made should suffer a
loss by such representation.

Nature of estoppel

The legal principle of the doctrine of estoppel is viewed as a substantive rule of

law, albeit, it has been described as a principle under the Indian Evidence Act,
1872.
 Types of Estoppel

1. Estoppel, by record- It is created by the decision of any competent court.

When any court decides finally over a subject then it becomes conclusive and
the parties, their representative, executor, administrator, etc. become bound to
that decision. They can neither bring another suit on the same subject nor can
make the same subject disputed. They are stopped from doing so. It is alike res
judicata.

2. Estoppel by deed- When any person becomes bound to another person on the
basis of a record regarding few facts, the neither that person nor any person
claiming through him shall be allowed to deny it.

3. Estoppel by conduct- It is such estoppel which arises due to act, conduct or

misrepresentation by any party. When any person causes another person to
believe by his word or conductor encourages them to believe and the other
person acts upon that belief and causes a change in their situation, then the first
person is stopped from denying truthiness of his statements made earlier. This is
also known as estoppel by matter in paiis is said to arise, firstly, from agreement
or- contract; secondly independently of contract, from act or conduct of
misrepresentation which has a change of position in accordance with the real or
apparent intentions of the party against whom the estoppel is alleged.

4. Equitable Estoppel- Such estoppels which have not been provided by any
statute is called equitable estoppel. The best examples of equitable estoppels are
there in Section 41 and 43 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

5. Promissory Estoppel- It has originated as an exception to consideration in the

field of contract law. When ant person promises another to lend him certain
relief or profit and the other changes his position on the basis of such promise,
then the person making promise shall be stopped from stating that his promise
was without any consideration.

6. Proprietary Estoppel- A legal precedent that will prevent a party from

denying the right that another party has in the first party's property. The second
party will have had costs in relation to the first party’s property. Until 1986, the
doctrine of proprietary estoppel was used as a way to bar litigants from
asserting their strict proprietary rights. The doctrine had not been used to give
effect to promises to leave property to someone in the future. It has developed
into one of equity’s sharpest instruments in its intervention in the common law
and statutory regulation of land and the distribution of assets on death. In such a
manner, there is a balance to be struck between the need to hold people for their
bargains and promises.
Exceptions to the Application of the Doctrine
of Estoppel

1. It does not apply to those matters where both parties have the knowledge
of truthiness.
2. It does not apply against statutes. It can neither contradict the provision of
statues nor can remove the condition of statues.
3. It does not apply to regulations.
4. It does not apply to ultra vires orders and decisions.
5. It does not apply to questions of law.
6. It does not apply to sovereign acts of the government.
 Provisions in Indian Evidence Act as to
Estoppel
1. Section 116- Estoppel of tenant and of license of person in possession No
tenant of immovable property of person claiming through such tenant
shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the
landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such
immovable property; and not person who came upon any immovable
property by the license of the person in possession thereof, shall be
permitted to deny that such person has a title to such possession at the
time when such license was given. S.116 prevents and disables the tenant
from denying the title of the landlord at the beginning. Notenant in
possession shall be permitted to challenge or question the title of landlord
at the time of commencement of Tenancy. And no person who came upon
any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession
thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title at the time
when the licence was given. Thus no licencee shall be permitted to
question or challenge the grantor licence at the time of granting the
licence.

2. Section 117 - Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or licensee

No acceptor of a bill of exchange shall be permitted to deny that the
drawer had authority of draw such bill or to endorse it; nor shall any
bailee or licensee be permitted to deny that his bailor or licensor had, at
the time when the bailment or license commenced, authority to make
such bailment or grant such license.
 Estoppel and Res Judicata

Sometimes, the doctrine of "res judicata" is considered as a branch of law

of estoppel. There is distinction between doctrine of res judicata,
principle of issue estoppel and rule estoppel under Section 115 of the
Evidence Act. The doctrine of res judicata creates legal embargo on hands
of the court to a judicial determination of deciding the same question over
again even though earlier determination may be demonstrated erroneous.
When the proceedings between the same parties have attained finality,
they are bound by the judgment and cannot be permitted to re-agitate the
same list. The determination of the issue in the same set of facts in the
previous between the parties would give rise to an issue of estoppel. It
operates in any subsequent proceedings between the same parties. The
doctrine of res judicata is based on rule of procedure. However, in the
doctrine of estoppel under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, there is
embargo on the party to plead or prove a particular facts whereas in case
of res judicata, the prohibition is operative against the court to deal with
the same kind of issue again and again.
 Conclusion

The object of every law Is to render justice. But sometimes the strict
implementation of law may result in injustice. Under such circumstances equity
will step in to prevent the injustice. Estoppel is one such concept evolved by
equity for rendering justice even deviating from strict legal principles. The idea
that a man must keep his word and must be responsible for the consequences of
his conduct when other men have trusted him is accepted by all civilizations. As
law developed, this was recognized as apart of the legal system even though the
same Is not codified as such. Thus, estoppel was used by the courts for
preventing injustice in appropriate fact situations. Ever since the principle of
estoppel has been expounded and applied in judicial proceedings there has been
a conflict of views as to whether estoppel is a rule of evidence or a rule of
substantive law. Such a conflict is out of place now since estoppel has been
recognized as a rule of law. If the principle is confined as a rule of evidence it
will only enable a party in a litigation to invoke the doctrine against his
opponents as to prevent him from retracting the stand earlier taken by him in the
course of their dealings and which led to a relationship between them. If the
principle is treated as a rule of substantive law, it would enable the party to
initiate legal proceedings founded on the principle. Thus as a part of substantive
law, the principle of estoppel will provide a cause of action in itself. There are
other distinctions also. As a rule of evidence it can be applied in a cause only
when the parties there to have a preexisting legal relationship while as
substantive law it can be applied even if the parties have no such relationship.
However, now it is almost settled by various judicial pronouncements that
estoppel could be treated as a part of substantive law. It is based on equity and
good conscience and is intended to secure justice between the parties by
upholding honesty and good faith. The object is clearly to prevent fraud and
manifest injustice