Doctrine of Estoppel under the indian law.pptx

what is estoppel

1. Doctrine of Estoppel

2. Estoppel literally means- ‘to stop’. According to it, when any person says one thing at one time and another thing at another time, then he is prevented from doing so. This is an estoppel. "  Estopped means stopped, which means a person is not allowed or permitted to speak contrary to his earlier statement. "

3.   S.115 of  the Indian evidence Act defines it "  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."

4. 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. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title

5. It can be said in simple words that- Where any person intentionally causes another person to believe a thing to be true by his act, omission or declaration and such other person acts upon such belief, then that person shall not be allowed to deny the truth of that thing, later in a suit or proceeding. It means that a person cannot deny thing after having stated it to be true. In the case of  B. Manjunath v. C.G.Srinivas (AIR 2005 Karnataka 136) , it has been stated by the Karnataka High Court that by way of the principle of estoppel, the plaintiff may be stopped to go back on his representation. This is the doctrine of Estoppel

6. . A person accepts his liability to make payment under an arbitration award. Such a person cannot later challenge the award.  (Mr. Govingji Javet and Co. v. Sri Saraswati Mills Ltd., AIR 1982 Bombay 76.)   Section 115 gives a good example. ‘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. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.

7. In respect of estoppels, the case of ‘ Shammim Beg v. Najmunnissa Begum (AIR 2007 N.O.C. 2085 Mumbai)  is quotable. In this case, a document was executed between the husband and wife an intention that the wife has begotten before the marriage with the husband. The husband had accepted the fact of knowing the child. The wife gave birth to a child on the day of marriage. The husband could not challenge the legitimacy of this child. He is bounded by his previous statements

8. In this context, the case of ‘ Pickard v. Spears’ (1837 A and E. 469)  is a good example. In this case, 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

9. Conditions for Application of Doctrine of Estoppel - For the application of the doctrine following conditions have to be satisfied - 1) There must be a representation made by one person to another person. 2) The representation must have been made as to fact and not as to law. 3) The representation must be as to an existing fact. 4) The representation must be intended to cause a belief in another. 5) The person to whom the representation is made must have acted upon that belief and must have suffered a loss.

10. A) S.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.

11. S.116 prevents and disables the tenant from denying the title of the landlord at the beginning. No tenant 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 grant or licence at the time of granting the licence .

12. Kuldeep  Singh vs   Shrimati   Balwant  Kaur ,AIR 1991 P & H. 291 when the tenant become wealthy of the property portion of which was let out to him, under the sale deed registered prior to one registered in favour of other. denied by him of relationship of tenant and landlord between him and subsequent vendor. It was held that tenancy right is not extinguished.

13. B ) S.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.

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

15. Rajesh  Wadhwa   vs Dr. (Mrs)  Sushma   Goyal  AIR 1989 Delhi 144. In this case, the lease deed executed by land lady's father on behalf of the landlady. Eviction petition by father under power of attorney of the landlady. The tenant was estopped from taking the plea that the land lady's father was not duly constituted attorney to file the eviction petition.

16. Ambika  Prasad  Mohanty   Vs Orissa Engineering College and others AIR1989 Orissa 173 . In this case, the plea was against cancellation of admission of student admitted in private Engineering College after the selection. The cancellation of his admission was on the ground that he had secured minimum marks in the qualifying examination as prescribed in college prospectus. The university regulation does not prescribe any minimum marks for eligibility for admission to the engineering college estopped from canceling the admission.

17. Types of Estoppel 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. 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.

18. . 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 truthfulness of his statements made earlier. Actually, this is an estoppel of general nature. 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.

19. 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.

20. Exceptions: It does not apply to those matters where both parties have the knowledge of truthfulness. It does not apply against statutes. It cannot contradict the provision of statues. It cannot also remove the condition of statues. It does not apply to regulations. It does not apply to ultra virus orders and decisions. It does not apply to questions of law. It does not apply to sovereign acts of the government.

21. Conclusion - The principle of estoppel is a rule which prevents a person from taking up the inconsistent position from what he has pleaded or asserted earlier. The principle Estoppel is based on equity and good conscience the object of this principle is to prevent for and to manifest good faith amongst the parties. only parties and no stranger can take advantage of it. Estoppel is only a rule of law. It does not give rise to a cause of action.