Unit III - Law of - EvidenceEstoppel.pptx

Law of Evidence

1. CHAPTER VIII. –– ESTOPPEL Introduction : Dealt from Section 115 to 117 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 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 “When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true by his 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.” 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.

2. Nature of estoppel Despite being referred to as a principle under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, the doctrine of estoppel is regarded as a substantive rule of law. Types of Estoppel : There are two categories of judicial rulings. Judgements in rem This kind of verdict, which is given by a competent court, describes the status of the subject or object. For instance, a marriage may be established or ended by the family court. A ruling in rem is enforceable against all parties, regardless of whether they are involved in the action or not. Judgement in personam The judgments that determine the rights of the parties to a suit or procedure and are binding on the parties and their privies are known as judgments in personam .

3. CHAPTER VIII. –– ESTOPPEL 115. Estoppel.–– 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. 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. The representation made can be done in two ways: By words Through conduct which includes negligence

4. Section 115 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 wilfully 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. To apply the estoppel doctrine, the following conditions must be met: The representation must be rendered from one person to another. The representation made shall be as facts and not as rules. Representation as to an actual reality shall be made. The representation must be made in a manner which makes the other person believe that it is true. The person to whom the representation would be made should suffer a loss by such representation.

5. Scope and essential of Estoppel : In Chhaganlal Mehta vs. Haribhai Patel[(1982) 1 S.C.C. 223 (India)], the Supreme Court stipulated that the eight requirements must be met in order to bring the case in a scope of estoppel framework as specified in Section 115. “A person (or his / her designated agent) must have served another person. Such a representation could be in any form— a sentence, an act, or an omission. Such portrayal must have been true, and not future promises or thoughts. The interpretation must have been obtained to rely on. Confidence on the part of the other party must have been in the facts. Any action must have been taken on the confidence of that sentence, act or omission. In other words, such a comment, behavior or omission must have in fact caused the other person to act on its confidence, and to change his position to his prejudice or disadvantage. The misrepresentation or actions or omission must have caused the other party to respond to its prejudice.

6. 7. The person claiming an estoppel’s gain firstly show that he does not have known about the authentic state of things. If the person has mean to known about the actual state of affairs, then there can be no estoppel. 8. The doctrine can only be used by the person who’s the representation was made, or for whom it was built (or by his representative).” Exceptions to Estoppel : Following are the exceptions to the doctrine of estoppel Estoppel cannot be used against laws or regulations since both parties must have full knowledge of the facts in question for this theory to apply. It should not be in conflict with applicable laws or rules. It wouldn’t apply in situations where one participant acted or made a choice outside his or her authority. It cannot be used to challenge government

7. Sanatan Gauda v. Bharampur University [A.I.R. 1990 SC 107], in this case, the student took admitted to a law college and successfully complete his two years. In his final year university objected to releasing his result of the pre and intermediate examinations on the ground that he is not eligible to do so. The Student had submitted all the required documents at the time of admission and also obtained the card for writing his final examination. The court declared that the university would be estopped from doing so, i.e. declaring the result of that student. Kumar Nilofar Insaf (Dr.) v. State of Madhya Pradesh [A.I.R. 1991 SC 187], in this case, while taking admission to the medical college, the college released a merit list for house-job. When the same merit list was released for admission to the M.D. course, the plaintiff filed a suit. The court estopped the plaintiff since he had consented to the first merit list.

8. Life Insurance Corporation v. O.P. Bhalla and Ors [ A.I.R. 1989 Pat 269 ]., in this case, the assured failed to pay the second instalment and the policy lapsed. Later, the corporation accepted the 3rd and 4th instalments and also the 2nd instalment with an interest. This policy ultimately came to an end with the death of the assured. The nominee of the assured claimed the insured amount from the corporation. It was found that before entering into a contract with the corporation, the assured had undergone an operation about which he didn’t inform the insurer. The court said that the assured’s act of keeping the information with him would not allow him to take the plea of estoppel. The defence was that disclosing it would not have made any difference if it was not accepted. Dataram S. Victore v. Tukaram S. Victore [A.I.R. 2000 SC 103], in this case, the tenant while filling out the form for an agreement clearly stated that he would be living along with his brother and his wife and it was accepted. The court dismissed the order of eviction and estopped the landlord from terminating the tenancy on the ground of the lease.

9. 116. Estoppel of tenants and of licensee of person in possession. –– No tenant of immovable property, or 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 no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession there of shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given Scope of Section 116 It is concerned with those estoppels which occur between: Tenant and his landlord Licensor and licensee Title of the landlord cannot be denied

10. Udai Pratap v. Krishna Pradhan[A.I.R. 1932 All 437], in this case, the continuance of tenancy was defined as a period during which the tenant enjoys the possession of the property and is seeking benefits from it. Moti Lal v. Yar Md[1925 All 275], in this case, the judge said that the tenant cannot say that the landlord has no more interest in the property when the landlord filed a suit for default payment and ejectment. It is only after leaving the possession can the holding of title by the landlord be questioned. Sri S.K. Sharma v. Mahesh Kumar Verma[A.I.R 2002 SC 3294], in this case, the defendant upon attaining a higher post was allotted a premise by the railway company. In this case, it was said that even when it was not known whether the land belonged to the railway company or not, the officer will have to evacuate the premises after retirement.

11. 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 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 when the bailment or licence commenced, authority to make such bailment or grant such licence . 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.

12. Types of Estoppel in Indian Evidence Act 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 like res judicata. Estoppel by deed- When any person becomes bound to another person on the basis of a record regarding a few facts, neither that person nor any person claiming through him shall be allowed to deny it. 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 the truthfulness of his statements made earlier. Actually, this is an estoppel of general nature.

13. Estoppel By-Election : When a party is given two options related to one subject matter and the party elects (chooses) option 1. Hence the party trade-offs option 2 and are estopped from later claiming the same. Estoppel by Convention : when participants to a transaction assume the facts or the law, as was noted in the case of the Republic of India v. India Steam Ship Company Limited . Both parties or only one of them might hold this presumption. According to this principle, participants to an agreement could not dispute the presumptions made regarding the facts, as doing so would be unfair and result in injustice. Equitable Estoppel- Such estoppels which have not been provided by any statute are called equitable estoppel. The best examples of equitable estoppels are there in Sections 41 and 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Promissory Estoppel- It has originated as an exception to consideration in the field of contract law. When any 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 the promise shall be stopped from stating that his promise was without any consideration.