DADABHOY INSTITUTE

OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Main Campus, Karachi
Faculty of Law B.A-LLB

TITLE PAGE

Registration No. . B.A-LLB/3-19/M01032

Student Name . AREEBA
Batch No. . 07

Semester . 08th Semester

Title of Assignment . Class Assignment

Title of Course . Law of Evidence-2

Name of Faculty
. Sir Adeel Abid
Member
Submission Date . 30-May-2023

Group/Topic . ------

1|Page
INTRODUCTION

The word 'estoppel' came from French word 'estoupe’ which which in English as

'stopped' in law. The term was adopted by the Jurisprudence for the purpose of

shutting the mouth of a person who alleged or pleaded or spoken or acted upon truth

in one previous occasion and tries to avoid or evade his own allegation or pleading

or speech or action with a mala fide (i.e. ill intention).

According to Tamlin's law Dictionary "Estoppel is an impediment or bar to a right

action arising from a man's own act; or where he is forbidden by law to speak against

his own deed, for by his act or acceptance he may be estopped to allege or speak

the truth.

The rule of estoppel is based on the maxim: "Allegans contraria non est audiendus"

A person alleging contradictory facts should not be heard. It is based on the principle

that it would be most inequitable and unjust that if one person, by a representation

made or by conduct amounting to a representation has induced another to act, the

person who made the representation should be allowed to deny or repudiate the

effect of his former statements, to the loss and injury of the person who acted on it.

EXAMPLE

One real-life example of estoppel comes from the world of trading cards. A famous

trading card game developer, Wizards of the Coast, once promised never to reprint a

specific set of cards, called the Reserved List. Some of those cards are now worth

hundreds of thousands of dollars. Decades later, that company holds to the promise.

One reason for the company sticking to this commitment may be that the holders of

those cards could bring the company to court with a claim of promissory estoppel if a

2|Page
reprint were issued — arguing that reprinting those cards would cause significant

financial losses to customers.

Types of Estoppel

In common law, there are three kinds of estoppel:

 Estoppel by deed - A grantor in a deed who did not have title at the time the deed

was executed is estopped from claiming the transfer is invalid, if he later acquires

title to the property.

 Estoppel by record - If the record of a court judgment recites a fact, parties to the

judgment are estopped from looking behind the judgment to deny the fact.

 Estoppel in pais - This is also called equitable estoppel, as it means that a party

may not assert a position that goes contrary to a previous representation made to

one who detrimentally relied on it.

Estoppel by deed and estoppel by record are similar, because they rely on facts

stated in a document, and hence they are also called legal estoppel. In contrast,

estoppel in pais is based on misrepresentations that someone has made, upon

which another relied to his detriment that is his significant loss. This is also called

equitable estoppel. The history and development of promissory estoppel stems from

the equitable doctrine of estoppel in pais.

3|Page
SECTION 114

Section 114 of QSO lays down the principle of estoppel as a rule of evidence. It

provides that "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".

The illustration to this section reads as follows: A' intentionally and falsely leads B to

believe that certain land belongs to A and thereby Induced 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. He must not be allowed to

prove his want of title". Thus as a rule of evidence the same is codified in India. As a

rule of substantive law, it is entirely judge made, both in England and in India. The

principle is evolved as a result of compulsions felt by the Judges when called upon to

adjudicate cases based on equity and good conscience in the absence of any

statutory provision dealing with the subject matter of the case. The result is that the

rule is invoked and applied even in cases where there is no pre-existing legal

relationship between the parties to a cause either in the form of a contract or

otherwise. The principles are applied even to a mere promise to perform an act in

future even if the promise is not supported with consideration. All that is required to

be established is that the promise made was intended to be acted upon and on that

belief someone did act and altered his position.

CONDITIONS

To invoke the doctrine of estoppel three conditions must be satisfied namely.

4|Page
(i) Representation by a person to another

(ii) The other shall have acted upon the said representation, and

(iii)Such action shall have been detrimental to the interests of the person to whom

the representation has been made. Even where the first two conditions are

satisfied by the third is not, there Is no scope to invoke the doctrine of estoppel.

The doctrine embodied in Section 114 is not a rule of equity, but is a rule of evidence

formulated and applied in course of law. It precludes a person from denying the truth

of some statement previously made by himself. No cause of action arises upon

estoppel itself. Section 114 is based on equity and good conscience the object being

to prevent fraud and secure justice between the parties by promoting honesty and

good faith amongst the parties. Section 114 is based on the decision in [Pickard v.

Sears [(1832) Ad & El 469] in which it was stated, "where a person by his words or

conduct willfully causes another to believe in the existence of a certain state of things

and induces him to act on the belief so as to alter his own previous position, the

former is precluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as

existing at the same time.

Essential conditions for the application of the Doctrine of Estoppel

To bring the case within the scope of estoppels as defined in Section 114:

 there must be a representation by a person or his authorized agent to another in

any form, a declaration, act or omission;

 the representation must have been of the existence of a fact and not of promises

de futuro or intention which might or might not be enforceable in contract;

 the representation must have been meant to be relied upon;

 there must have been belief on the part of the other party in its truth;

5|Page
 here must have been action on the faith of that declaration, act or omission, that is

to say the declaration, act or omission, must have actually caused another to act

on the faith of it, and to alter his former position to his prejudice or detriment,

 The misrepresentation or conduct or omission must have been his proxinate cause

of leading the other party to act to his prejudice.

 The person claiming the benefit of an estoppel must show that he was not aware of

the truc state of things. If he was aware of the real state of affairs or had means of

knowledge. There can be no estoppel;

 Only the person to whom representation was made or for whom it was designed

can avail himself of it.

Usually the only effect of an estoppel is to prevent proof of a fact; if the party can

establish his case by proving other relevant facts, he is allowed to do so. In such a

case estoppel is merely an exclusionary rule of evidence. But sometimes the reason

why evidence is excluded is that estoppel has removed the issue to which the

proffered evidence would be relevant, and here it might justly be described as a rule

of substantive law. The estoppel cannot override positive rules of law or make legal

that which is illegal or it cannot be set up in the face of a statute. ) Estoppel is a rule

of civil action. It has no application to criminal proceedings, though in such

proceedings it would be prejudicial to set up a different story.

The doctrine of estoppel is not applied to the following:

 Estoppel does not apply to the criminal proceedings.

 A stranger cannot take the advantage of estoppel.

 Where there is no duty, there is no estoppel. (iv) the doctrine does not apply

against the incompetent persons i.e. minors, persons of unsound mind etc.

6|Page
 The principle of estoppel cannot be invoked against the provisions of a statute or a

law.

 An act or representation made due to innocent mistake done does not create

estoppel.

 The doctrine of estoppel does not operate against a person who was non-existent

at the date when the transaction took place.

 The doctrine of estoppel does not operate against the acts which are illegal and

void by nature.

 The doctrine of estoppel does not apply against the government in its

governmental, public or sovereign capacity.

 Where both the parties are acting under a common misapprehension, the rule of

estoppel does not arise.

7|Page
SECTION 115

ESTOPPEL OF TENANT AND OF LICENSE OF PERSON IN POSSESSION

Section 115 of the QSO run as follows "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.

Section 115 prevents the tenant from denying the title of the landlord at the

beginning. No tenant in possession shall be permitted to deny the title of landlord at

the time of commencement of tenancy. Similarly, any person who came upon any

immovable property by the License of the person in possession thereof shall not be

permitted to deny that such person had a title, at time of giving the license. License

makes unlawful act lawful.

For example: entering anther's land with license is no trespass. Section 115 of the

Evidence deals with estoppel between

(i) a tenant of immovable property and his landlord and

(ii) Licensee and the licensor.

Section 115 postulates that there is a tenancy still continuing and that it had its

beginning at a given date from a given landlord, and provides that neither a tenant

nor any one claiming through a tenant shall be heard to deny that the particular

landlord had at that date on title to the property.

8|Page
The estoppel of a tenant is founded upon contract between the tenant and his

landlord. It is one of the most noticeable instances of estoppel by contract.

In Halsbury's Law of England, it is stated: "The lessor is estopped from repudiating a

lease under which possession has been given or a tenancy which he acknowledged

and the assignee of the lessor's interest is estopped from denying anything which the

lessor is estopped from denying. The rule in Section 115 is well settled law that

during the continuance of tenancy, the tenant cannot acquire by prescription a

permanent right of occupancy in derogation of the landlord's title by mere assertion

of such a right to the knowledge of the landlord.

9|Page
Section 117

ESTOPPEL OD ACCEPTOR OF BILL OF EXCHANGE, BALIEE OR LICENSEE

No acceptor of a bill of exchange shall be permitted to deny that the drawer

had authority to 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 with the

bailment or licensee commenced, authority to make such bailment or grant

such licensee.

Explanation 1: 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.

Explanation 2: If a Bailee delivers the goods bailed to a person other than the

Bailor, the may prove that such person had a right to them as against the bailor.

As per the stand taken by Supreme Court in the case of Mohan v. State, the rule of

issue estoppel does not prohibit that evidence given at one trial against the accused

cannot be given in another trial for another offence. Thus where the acquittal order of

a Magistrate on a minor offence was set aside and the accused committed for trial on

a major offence, the principle of issue estoppel will not apply.

CONCLUSION:

The Doctrine of estoppel is an important principle which protects people against

fraud or misrepresentation. There are several instances where an innocent person

becomes a prey to false representations made to them by some party. Sometimes

the case may be such that the plaintiff suffered huge losses. This doctrine avoids

such situations and charges the person for his wrongful conduct.

10 | P a g e
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 their faith

in them, and incur losses as a result of such false representations, by not performing

such acts, else they would be held liable.

11 | P a g e