LAW OF EVIDENCE PROJECT ON
RULE OF ESTOPPEL UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT AND ITS EXCEPTIONS
Hidayatullah National Law Uni!"#ity Rai$u"% Chhatti#&a"h Su'(itt!d to) *# Adya Pand!y FACULT+ OF LAW OF EVIDENCE% H,N,L,U Rai$u"
Su'(itt!d 'y) A(it!#h D!#h(u-h Roll No,./0 S!(!#t!". VII% 1,A, LL1, 2Hon#,3
CONTENT 4, TA1LE A1LE OF CASES555 CASES5555555 55555555 55555555 55555555 55555555 5555555, 555,,,0 ,,0 /, O1JECT O1JECTIVE IVE5555 55555555 55555555 55555555 55555555 55555555 5555555, 555,55,6 55,6 7, RESEAR RESEARCH CH *ETHODOLO *ETHODOLO8+5 8+55555 55555555 55555555 55555555 555555,5 55,556 56 0, INTROD INTRODUCT UCTION ION5555 55555555 55555555 55555555 55555,,,,5 5,,,,55555 55555555 5555,9 ,9 :, DOCTRI DOCTRINE NE OF ESTOPPE ESTOPPEL55 L55555,,5 555,,5555, 555,,,555 ,,5555555 55555555 5555,5; ,5; 6, 555555,,,/> =, CONCLU CONCLUSIO SION555 N5555555 55555555 55555555 55555,55 5,555555 555555,5 55,555,,/ 55,,/4 4 4>, 1I1LIO8RAPH 1I1LIO8RAPH+555555555 +555555555555555,55555 555555,555555555,55,,// 5555,55,,//
TA1LE OF CAS CASES ES First National First National Bank plc v Thompson ]1996] Ch 231……………………………………….. 231……………………………………….. Olga Tellis Tellis v. Boma! "#nicipal Corporation$ 19%6 &'( 1%)……………………………. 1
&*#l +ha,,ar -han v. 'shtin &li$ 19/3 ) 30/ ………………………………………….. -al!ani san*aram v. &sstt. Controller o, state #t!$ "a*ras$ &'( 19%9 4C 160/……….. 4an*erhi evrao eshpan*e v. eva5i 4hankar eshpan*e$ 190 / 4C %2 ………………. al -han v. &llah itto$ 7 190) 1910 ………………………………………………. 7arma Nar* v. Champa al$ 1906 & 220…………………………………………………… Bhag8ati 7rasa* 4ah v. (a*ha -ish#n 4eth$ &'( 190) 7 30/……………………………. -ali a!al v. mesh 7rasa*$ 60 'C 266………………………………………………….. &llaha: 7in*e: v. N#sser8an5i$ 16/ 'C /3……………………………………………….. +o#in*a (ao ;in re<=$ &'( 190% "!s 10)………………………………………………… 4ailen*ra Nara!an Bhan5a eo v. 4tate$ 1906 &'( 3/6 …………………………………. 4o#th &merican > "e:ican co. ;in re<=$ 1%90 ;1= Ch 3? ………………………………. -inch v. @alcott$ 192) &C /%2…………………………………………………………… a8sons Bank v Nippin "eka8a$ ;1930= 3? BO"( 0//………………………………… . Aohnstone v. +opal 4ingh$ 133 'C 62% ……………………………………………….. achhman "al v. "#nshi "ahton$ 1933 7 ?)% ;2=………………………………………….. @est 7#n5a +overnment v. &kar &li$ 7 1902 /3)…………………………………… (#p Chan* +hosh v. 4arves8ar Chan*ra$ ;19)6= 33 Cal 91 0…………………………….. +anges "an#,act#ring Co. v. 4o#r#5m#ll$ ;1%%)= 0 Cal 699…………………………….. N. Bh#anes8ar (ao v. 7rincipal$ Osmania College$ !*.$ &'( 19%6 &7 196………… Aaikaran 4ingh v. 4ita (am$ &'( 19?/ 7 36/…………………………………………….. Coe v eomanDs (o8 "anagement E2))%] 1 @..(. 1?02$……………………………. 7ickar* v. 4ears$ ;1%3?= 6 &* > /69……………………………………………………. "ohan v. 4tate$ &'( 196% 4C 12%1…………………………………………………………. Chhaganlal "ehta v. arihai 7atel$ E;19%2= 1 4.C.C. 223 ]$………………………………. (.4. "a*anappa &n* Ors v. Chan*ramma &n* &nr.$ 1960 &'( 1%12 …………………….. 4o#r#5m#ll v. +anges ",g. Co. ;1%%)= '( 0 Cal 669…………………………………….. 4. 4eth#raman v. (. enkataraman$ ;2))?= 6 4CC 3%2…………………………………. . v. "aha (am$ 19 Cr A 610…………………………………………………………….. "a*h#miri s#r!a Nara!an v. state$ 2))3 Cr A NOC ?0 ;-ant=………………………….. 4heo Tahal (am v. Bmaek 4h#k#l$ 03 & ?/?< 1931 & 6%9 ………………………………. Aa*o 4ingh v. Bish#nath &$ 19/2 7 ?1…………………………………………………. 2
C.-. "ehta v. 7atel Naran*as arihai$ &'( 19%3 ;9= 4C 119…………………………
O1JECTIVES OF THE STUD+
The o5ectives o, the pro5ect are as ,ollo8s
3
1= To *isc#ss ao#t octrine o, estoppel. 2= To elaorate ho8 the octrine o, estoppel has een encaps#late* in the provisions o, 'n*ian vi*ence &ct. 3= To #n*erstan* the implications o, stoppel #n*er a8 o, vi*ence.
RESEARCH *ETHODOLO8+ AND DATA COLLECTION This 7ro5ect is *octrinal in nat#re. 4econ*ar! an* lectronic reso#rces have een largel! #se* to gather in,ormation an* *ata. Books an* other re,erence as g#i*e* ! Fac#lt! o, A#rispr#*ence have een primaril! help,#l in giving this pro5ect a ,irm str#ct#re. @esites have also een re,erre*.
INTRODUCTION
@hen one person has$ ! his *eclaration$ act or omission$ intentionall! ca#se* or permitte* another person to elieve a thing to e tr#e an* to act #pon s#ch elie,$ neither he nor his representative shall e allo8e*$ in an! s#it or procee*ing et8een himsel, an* s#ch person or his representative$ to *en! the tr#th o, that thing. stoppel ma! operate ! 8a! o, preventing
4
someone ,rom asserting a partic#lar ,act in co#rt$ or e:ercising a certain right$ or ,rom ringing a partic#lar claim. BlackHs a8 ictionar! *e,ines estoppel as a Ibar or impediment raised by the law, which precludes a man from alleging or from denying a certain fact or state of facts, in consequence of his previous allegation or denial or conduct or admission, or in consequence of a final adjudication of the matter in a court of lawI1. The ver is estop$ 8hich comes ,rom "i**le nglish estoppen$ itsel, orro8e* ,rom Ol* French estop;p=er$ esto#per$ pres#mal! ,rom #lgar atin Jst#ppKre Lto stop #p 8ith to8$ ca#lkD The no#n ,orm estoppel is ase* on the Ol* French esto#pail Lstopper$ #ngD$ a *erivative o, esto#per. 4o$ in this research pro5ect the a#thor 8ill tr! to e:plain an* elaorate the *octrine o, estoppel #n*er the 'n*ian vi*ence &ct$ an* the same 8ill e *one 8ith help o, case la8s$ stat#tor! provisions an* *i,,erentiation o, estoppel ,rom other e#itale *octrines like res 5#*#cata.
DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL stoppel is sometimes sai* to e a r#le o, evi*ence 8here! a person is arre* ,rom lea*ing evi*ence o, a ,act that has alrea*! een settle* or the! are other8ise precl#*e* ,rom asserting. o8ever$ that ma! e an oversimpli,ication. Firstl!$ altho#gh some estoppels relate to th
1 BlackDs la8 *ictionar!$ 9 e*$ pg no. 629
5
preventing a part! ,rom asserting ,acts$ others relate to preventing a part! ,rom asserting a right or a claim. 4econ*l!$ #n*er the con,lict o, la8s in common la8 5#ris*ictions matters o, evi*ence are #s#all! treate* as proce*#ral matters ,or the la8 o, the local co#rt ;the le: ,ori=$ 8hereas it is generall! accepte* that an estoppel ma! a,,ect s#stantive rights an* are there,ore matters to e *etermine* ! the proper la8 ;or le: ca#sae= 8hich governs the partic#lar iss#e.2 There are a h#ge arra! o, *i,,erent t!pes o, estoppel 8hich can arise #n*er common la8 legal s!stems. 't has een 5#*iciall! note* on more than one occasions that the link et8een them is o,ten slightl! ten#o#s. Treitel on Contracts notes that "’unconscionability ... provides the link between them.' But they nevertheless have 'separate requirements and different terrains of application'." The co#rts have long aan*one* an attempt to create a single general #n*erl!ing rationale or principle< !the attempt... to demonstrate that all estoppels... are now subsumed in the single and all embracing estoppel by representation and that they are all governed by the came principle #has$ never won general acceptance.% G or* "illett/ The plea o, estoppel is o,ten closel! connecte* 8ith the plea o, 8aiver$ the o5ect o, oth eing to ens#re ona ,i*es in *a!GtoG*a! transactions.0 't is also relate* to the *octrines o, variation an* election. 't is applie* in man! areas o, contract la8$ incl#*ing ins#rance$ anking$ an* emplo!ment. 'n nglish la8$ the concept o, legitimate e:pectation in the realm o, a*ministrative la8 an* 5#*icial revie8 is estoppelHs co#nterpart in p#lic la8.
2 ice! "orris > Collins on the Con,lict o, a8s$ 1/ e*. 2))6$ at ?G31.
3 Treitel on Contracts$ 1/th e*. ;2)10= at 3G)9).
4 First National Bank plc v Thompson ]1996] Ch 231 at 236
5 Olga Tellis v. Boma! "#nicipal Corporation$ 19%6 &'( 1%)$ 1%%
6
4pencer Bo8er an* T#rner have classi,ie* estoppels into three kin*s< 2i3 2ii3 2iii3
estoppel ! matter o, recor* estoppel ! matter in 8riting an* estoppel ! matter in paiis.6
The ,irst t8o are sometimes re,erre* to as technical estoppels as *isting#ishe* ,rom ac#itale estoppels or estoppel in paiis.? &ll these kin*s have een *isc#sse* #n*er 'n*ian la8 in vario#s cases% I,
E#to$$!l 'y *att!" o? R!@o"d o" E#to$$!l 'y R!# Judi@ata
stoppel ! recor* means nothing more generall! than that the matter is res A#*icata.9 't elongs more properl! to the province o, the p#re proce*#re an* is so *ealt 8ith in the 'n*ian legislation.1) (es 5#*icata is an estoppel ! 5#*gment.11 't emraces all those r#les$ the common characteristic o, 8hich is that ,inal 5#*icial *ecision o, a tri#nal o, competent 5#ris*iction$ once prono#nce* et8een parties litigant$ cannot e contra*icte* ! an!one$ as against an! other o, s#ch parties$ in an! s#se#ent litigation et8een the same parties respecting the same s#5ectG matter. There is a *i,,erence in the principles #pon 8hich the *octrines o, res 5#*icata an* estoppel ! representation are ase*. (es 5#*icata in this co#ntr! is ,o#n*e* on the principle that there sho#l*
6 4pencerGBo8er an* T#rner$ stoppel ! (epresentation ;2))3=$ pg no. 0
7 &*#l +ha,,ar -han v. 'shtin &li$ 19/3 ) 30/ -al!ani san*aram v. &sstt. Controller o, state #t!$
"a*ras$ &'( 19%9 4C 160/. 8 4#pra 6$ at ?.
9 4an*erhi evrao eshpan*e v. eva5i 4hankar eshpan*e$ 190/ 4C %2 al -han v. &llah itto$ 7
190) 1910 7arma Nar* v. Champa al$ 1906 & 220 10 4ee sections 11G1/$ Civil 7roce*#re Co*e 4ee also secs. /)G//$ vi*ence &ct$ 8hich *eal 8ith the
relevanc! o, 5#*gments. 11 Bhag8ati 7rasa* 4ah v. (a*ha -ish#n 4eth$ &'( 190) 7 30/.
7
e an en* to litigation as to an! iss#e et8een the parties 8hen once that iss#e has een *irectl! *etermine* et8een them ! a Co#rt o, competent 5#ris*iction$ an* it a,,ects not onl! the original parties #t all others a,ter8ar*s claiming #n*er them an* litigating #n*er the same title. 't ars ,resh litigation at the o#tset. stoppel ! representation is a r#le o, evi*ence ase* on the principle that a man$ 8ho ! his acts or statements has in*#ce* another to elieve a thing to e tr#e$ sho#l* not a,ter8ar*s e hear* to *en! the tr#th o, that thing to the pre5#*ice o, the other 8ho acte* #pon the elie, so in*#ce*.12 (es 5#*icata o#sts the 5#ris*iction o, the Co#rt$ 8hile estoppel merel! sh#ts the mo#th o, a part!. stoppel *oes not ,orces an* e,,ect o, 5#*gment *epen* on ;1= nat#re o, procee*ings ;2= ,or#m on 8hich it 8as prono#nce* mean an!thing more than that a person shall not e allo8e* to sa! one thing at one time an* the opposite o, it at another time 8hile res 5#*icata means nothing more than that a person shall not e hear* to sa! the same thing t8ice over.13 stoppel ! res 5#*icata e:ten*s also to matters o, a*mission ,#n*amental to the *ecision.1/ & 5#*gment ! consent or *e,a#lt is as e,,ective an estoppel et8een the parties as a 5#*gment 8here! the Co#rt e:ercises its min* on a conteste* case.10 stoppel an* pres#mption< &n estoppel is a personal *is#ali,icate 8ith a part! an* is prevente* ,rom *en!ing the tr#th o, his *eclaration$ M8hereas a pres#mption is a r#le that partic#lar in,erence shall e *ra8n ,rom ,acts$ 8hoever proves them. 12 -ali a!al v. mesh 7rasa*$ 60 'C 266 ;26%=.
13 &llaha: 7in*e: v. N#sser8an5i$ 16/ 'C /3
14 +o#in*a (ao ;in re<=$ &'( 190% " !s 10).
15 4ailen*ra Nara!an Bhan5a eo v. 4tate$ 1906 3/6 4o#th &merican > "e:ican co. ;in re<=$ 1%90 ;1=
Ch 3? -inch v. @alcott$ 192) &C /%2. 8
stoppel an* 8aiver< 'n Daw#on# 1an- Ni$$in *!-awa 46 or* (#ssell ha* ma*e the *istinction et8een an estoppel an* 8aiver< !&stoppel and waiver are entirely different. &stoppel is not a cause of action. t may, assist a plaintiff in enforcing a cause of action by preventing a defendant from denying the e(istence of same facts essential to establish the cause of action) on the other hand, waiver is contractual, and may, constitute a cause of action, it is an agreement to release or not to assert a right) i.e. if an agent with an authority to make such an agreement on behalf of the principal agrees to waive his principal’s right them the principal will be bound by the contract) not by estoppel. *here is no such thing as estoppel by waiver.% 4ome shares 8ere registere* ! the Compan! tho#gh presente* a,ter the perio* o, t8o months 8itho#t an! *emo#r. 'n re,#sing to register remaining shares the compan! can e sai* to have 8aive* their right. 'n an appointment o, aritrators it 8as estalishe* that the re,erence co#rt ha* no 5#ris*iction in matter o, terms. 't 8as hel* that inherent lack o, 5#ris*iction cannot e c#re* ! consent o, parties or 8aiver. @aiver is an intentional relin#ishment o, a kno8n right. 't means aan*onment o, right an* ma! e either e:press or implie* ,rom con*#ct #t its asic re#irement is that it m#st e intentional act. 't signi,ies nothing more than an intention no t to insist #pon the right. @aiver is generall! create* #pon kno8le*ge o, all ,acts ! oth parties$ 8hereas in estoppel ! representation$ kno8le*ge o, ,acts ! the representee *estro!s that estoppel. 'n 8aiver there sho#l* e some clear an* *ecisive act or con*#ct e!on* mere silence. 't ma! arise ,rom ac#iescence. B#t in case o, estoppel mere silence ma! give rise to an estoppel.
16 ;1930= 3? BO"( 0//
9
M*he principle of waiver although is akin to the principle of estoppel, the difference between the two, however, is that whereas estoppel is mear cause of action, it is a rule of evidence, waiver is contractual and may constituted a cause of action.1? The estoppel *oes not operate against stat#te$ 8hile in case o, 8aiver$ #nless it involves the p#lic at large or the stat#tor! re#irement is in p#lic interest a private person ca n 8aive it. The ene,it$ claim or privilege 8hich e:pect ,or s#ch a 8aiver$ the part! 8o#l* en5o!. ven in a case i, a plea is taken an* evi*ence is not le* it 8o#l* amo#nt to e a 8aiver.
II, E#to$$!l 'y d!!d
The r#le o, estoppel in*s the parties to the instr#ment an* those claiming thro#gh them ! *ee*. &n estoppel ! *ee* is precl#sion against the competent parties to a vali* seale* contract an* their privies$ to *en! its ,orce an* e,,ect ! an! evi*ence o, in,erior solemnit!. 1% The ten*enc! in mo*ern times is$ to treat estoppel ! *ee* as resting #pon contract an* as merel! a ,orm o, estoppel ! representation.19 The *octrine o, estoppel ! *ee* in its technical sense cannot e sai* to e:ist in 'n*ia.2) 'n 'n*ian la8$ a representation containe* in a *oc#ment o, ho8ever ,ormal a character$ eing merel! an a*mission$ is not concl#sive$ an* *oes not operate as an estoppel$ #nless the part! to 8hom the representation 8as ma*e has acte* #pon it an* th#s altere* his position.21 & representation containe* in a ,ormal *ee* is not clothe* 8ith an! special sanctit! in this co#ntr!$ e:cept that in certain cases it e:cl#*es oral evi*ence to the contrar!.22 17+octrine of -aiver and onstitution of ndia’ $ availale at
http<888.*esikanoon.co.in2)1/)0constit#tionalGla8G*octrineGo,G8aiver.html 18 4#pra 6$ at 10.
19 '*.
20 . Aohnstone v. +opal 4ingh$ 133 'C 62% achhman "al v. "#nshi "ahton$ 1933 7 ?)% ;2= ?11.
21 4ection 31 an* 110$ 'N'&N 'NC &CT 1%?2.
22 '*$ at s. 92.
10
III, E#to$$!l 'y *att!"# in $aii#
Istoppel ! matters in 7aiisI ;also$ pais= is *e,ine* ! Blackstone as an Iass#rance transacte* et8een t8o or more private persons in pais$ in the co#ntr!$ that$ is$ #pon the ver! spot to e trans,erre*I.23 stoppel in paiis is sai* to arise$ ,irstl!$ ,rom agreement orG contract secon*l! in*epen*entl! o, contract$ ,rom act or con*#ct o, misrepresentation 8hich has a change o, position in accor*ance 8ith the real or apparent intentions o, the part! against 8hom the estoppel is allege*. 2/ The &ct *eals 8ith the s#5ect o, in pais in sections 110G11?. The r#les containe* in sections 116 an* 11? are instances o, the estoppel ! contract. Other cases 8hich have een incl#*e* #n*er that *esignation 8ill e ,o#n* to ,all 8ithin the p#rvie8 o, section 110$ 8hich$ ho8ever$ primaril! appears to re,er to 8hat is kno8n as estoppel ! representation.
IV, Euita'l! !#to$$!l
The mo*ern la8 o, estoppel o8es immensel! to the *octrine o, e#it! eing ,o#n*e* on the inci*ents o, contracts or relations analogo#s to contracts co#ple* 8ith the representations o, parties ! a *eclaration$ act$ or omission. stoppels that are not provi*e* ! stat#te la8 ma!$ in this co#ntr!$ e terme* e#itale estoppels.20 & man ma! e estoppe* not onl! ,rom giving partic#lar evi*ence$ #t ,rom *oing acts$ or rel!ing #pon an! partic#lar arg#ments or contention 8hich the r#les o, e#it! conscience prevent his #sing as against his opponent.26 23 2 B&C-4TON4H4 CO""NT&('4$ at pg no. 29/
24 @est 7#n5a +overnment v. &kar &li$ 7 1902 /3).
25 (#p Chan* +hosh v. 4arves8ar Chan*ra$ ;19)6= 33 Cal 910.
26 +anges "an#,act#ring Co. v. 4o#r#5m#ll$ ;1%%)= 0 Cal 699 ;6?%=.
11
This *octrine also applies to a case 8here a person is given an #ne#ivocal ass#rance an* On the ,aith thereo,$ he acts *etrimental to his interest an* he then s#,,ers an irretrievale in5#r! in that p#rs#it. 'n s#ch a case having ma*e a promise$ the maker thereo, is precl#*e* to resile there,rom.2? V, P"o$"i!ta"y !#to$$!l
& legal prece*ent that 8ill prevent a part! ,rom *en!ing the right that another part! has in the ,irst part!Ds propert!. The secon* part! 8ill have ha* costs in relation to the ,irst part!Ds propert!. ntil 19%6 the *octrine o, proprietar! estoppel 8as #se* as a 8a! to ar litigants ,rom asserting their strict proprietar! rights. The *octrine ha* not een #se* to give e,,ect to promises to leave propert! to someone in the ,#t#re.2% 't has *evelope* into one o, e#it!Ds sharpest instr#ments in its intervention in the common la8 an* stat#tor! reg#lation o, lan* an* the *istri#tion o, assets on *eath.29 'n s#ch a manner$ there is a alance to e str#ck et8een the nee* to hol* people ,or their argains an* promises.3) 'n the case o, Co''! +!o(anB# Row *ana&!(!nt 74$ the essentials o, proprietar! estoppels 8ere taken into consi*eration. The o#se o, or*s in this case state* that Coe cannot make a claim o, proprietar! estoppel$ an* also negate* on the aspect o, ac#iring an interest as regar*s to a constr#ctive tr#st. VI, P"o(i##o"y !#to$$!l
The legal en,orcement o, a promise. "a*e ! 8or*s or con*#ct to the promisee 8itho#t the consi*eration o, the *etriment it ma! ca#se. 27 N. Bh#anes8ar (ao v. 7rincipal$ Osmania College$ !*.$ &'( 19%6 &7 196.
28 Aaikaran 4ingh v. 4ita (am$ &'( 19?/ 7 36/.
29 http<888.step.orgproprietar!GestoppelGlookingGothG,or8ar*Gan*GackGa,terGthornerGvGma5or
30 Nick 7iska$ opes$ :pectations an* (evocale 7romises in 7roprietar! stoppel.
31 E2))%] 1 @..(. 1?02
12
The *octrine o, promissor! estoppel *oes not ,all 8ithin the scope o, section 110 as the section talks ao#t representations ma*e as to e:isting ,acts 8hereas promissor! estoppel *eals 8ith ,#t#re promises.32
ESTOPPEL UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT The la8 ,or estoppel or the r#le o, e:cl#sion o, certain evi*ence #n*er certain circ#mstances$ like et8een tenant an* lan*lor*$ licensee o, person in possession an* licensor ;s. 116=$ or as et8een acceptor an* *ra8er o, a ill o, e:change$ as et8een Bailee an* ailor an* licensor an* license ;s. 11?=. stoppel is a proce*#re o, proo,.%10 4ection 110 o, evi*ence act rea*s<
32 http<888.legalservicein*ia.comarticlel2/9G7romissor!Gstoppel.html
13
!-hen 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%. 'll#stration< !/ intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to /, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it) *he land afterwards becomes the property of /, and / seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. 0e must not be allowed to prove his want of title%.3/ The *octrine emo*ie* #n*er this section is not a r#le o, e#it!$ #t is a r#le o, evi*ence ,orm#late* an* applie* in co#rts o, la8.30 'n Pi@-a"d , S!a"# 76$ the mortgagee o, the machiner! permitte* it to remain in the possession o, the mortgagor$ against 8hom a 5#*gment 8as e:ec#te*. The machiner! 8as seiPe* in e:ec#tion$ #t altho#gh the mortgagee spoke to the 5#*gment cre*itors attorne! he ,oolishl! ma*e no re,erence to the ,act that machiner! in 8hich he ha* an interest ha* een seiPe* to pa! another manDs *et$ nor *i* he make an! claim to the machiner! ,or some time. @hen he event#all! *i* so$ it 8as hel* that he might e estoppe* ,rom *en!ing that the machiner! 8as the *etorDs$ as his con*#ct amo#nte* to a 8ill,#l representation to that e,,ect.
P"in@i$l!)
The principle lai* *o8n in this section is that 8hen a person has ! his$Q ;i= *eclaration$ ;ii= act$ or ;iii= omission intentionall! ca#se* or permitte* another ;a= to elieve a thing to e tr#e$ an* ;= to act #pon s#ch elie,$ then neither he nor his representative shall not e allo8e* to *en! the 33 4ection 110$ 'n*ian vi*ence &ct$ 1%?2
34 '*.
35 ". "orir$ Te:took on thea8 o, vi*ence ;2)11=$ at pg 323.
36 7ickar* v. 4ears$ ;1%3?= 6 &* > /69.
14
tr#th o, it. 'n short$ the section means that 8hen a person ! his 8or*s or ! his con*#ct makes a representation to another that certain state o, things is tr#e an* in*#ces him to act on that elie, an* 8hen the other person rel!ing #pon the representation alter his previo#s position$ then the person making s#ch representation 8o#l* e estoppe* ,rom *en!ing the tr#th o, his previo#s representation. 'ngre*ients< Follo8ing are ingre*ients o, 4ection 110$ viP.$Q 1. There m#st e some representation. 2. The representation m#st e ma*e 8ith the intention to e acte* #pon. 3. The representation m#st have een acte* #pon. /. 4#ch action sho#l* have een *etrimental to the interests o, the person 8hom the representation has een ma*e. The section *oes not appl! 8here the statement relie* #pon is ma*e to a person 8ho kno8s the tr#e ,acts an* is not misle* ! the #ntr#e statement. There can e no estoppel i, tr#e ,acts are kno8n to oth the parties. There,ore$ i, & kne8 the tr#e ,acts$ no estoppel arises. There are ,o#r Rlasses o, estoppel to e ,o#n* in section 116 an* 11? o, the &ct$ viP.$ estoppel o, 1. Tenant ;4ection 116= No tenant o, immovale propert! ;or person claiming thro#gh s#ch tenant= can$ *#ring the contin#ance o, the tenanc!$ e permitte* to *en! that the lan*Glor* o, s#ch tenant ha*$ at the eginning o, the tenanc!$ a title to s#ch immovale propert!.
2. icensee o, a person in possession ;4ection 116= No person 8ho came #pon immovale propert! ! the licence o, the person in possession thereo, can *en! that s#ch person ha* a title to s#ch possession at the time 8hen s#ch licence 8as given. 15
3. &cceptor o, a ill o, e:change ;4ection 11?= No acceptor o, a ill o, e:change can *en! that the *ra8er ha* a# thorit! to *ra8 s#ch ill or to en*orse it #t he ma! *en! that the ill 8as reall! *ra8n ! the person ! 8hom it p#rports to have een *ra8n. /. Bailee or licensee ;4ection 11?=< No ailee or licensee can *en! that his ailor or licensor ha*$ at the time 8hen the ailment or license commence*$ a#thorit! to make s#ch ailment or grant s#ch licence. B#t$ i, a ailee *elivers the goo*s aile* to a person other than the ailor$ he ma! prove that s#ch person ha* a right to them as against the ailor. &s per the stan* taken ! 4#preme Co#rt in the case o, *ohan , Stat!79$ the r#le o, iss#e estoppel *oes not prohiit that evi*ence given at one trial against the acc#se* cannot e given in another trial ,or another o,,ence.3% Th#s 8here the ac#ittal or*er o, a "agistrate on a minor o,,ence 8as set asi*e an* the acc#se* committe* ,or trial on a ma5or o,,ence$ the principle o, iss#e estoppel 8ill not appl!
S@o$! o? E#to$$!l und!" th! a@t)
'n Chha&anlal *!hta , Ha"i'hai Pat!l 7=$ the 4#preme Co#rt anal!se* the scope o, 4. 110 o, the &ct$ an* lai* *o8n that the ,ollo8ing eight con*itions m#st e satis,ie* to ring a case 8ithin the scope o, estoppel$ as *e,ine* in 4. 110. ;i= There m#st have een a representation ! a person ;or his a#thorise* agent= to another person. 4#ch a representation ma! e in an! ,orm Q a *eclaration or an act or an omission.
37 "ohan v. 4tate$ &'( 196% 4C 12%1.
38 '*.
39 E;19%2= 1 4.C.C. 223 ]$
16
;ii= 4#ch representation m#st have een o, the e:istence o, a ,act$ an* not o, ,#t#re promises or intention. ;iii= The representation m#st have een meant to have een relie* #pon. ;iv= There m#st have een elie, on the part o, the other part! in its tr#th. ;v= There m#st have een some action on the ,aith o, that *eclaration$ act or omission. 'n other 8or*s$ s#ch *eclaration$ act or omission m#st have act#all! ca#se* the other person to act on the ,aith o, it$ an* to alter his position to his pre5#*ice or *etriment. ;vi= The misrepresentation or con*#ct or omission m#st have een the pro:imate ca#se o, lea*ing the other part! to act to his pre5#*ice. ;vii= The person claiming the ene,it o, an estoppel m#st sho8 that he 8as not a8are o, the tr#e state o, things. There can e no estoppel i, s#ch a person 8as a8are o, the tr#e state o, a,,airs or i, he ha* means o, s#ch kno8le*ge. ;viii= Onl! the person to 8hom the representation 8as ma*e or ,or 8hom it 8as *esigne* ;or his representative= can avail o, the *octrine. 'n the case o, R,S, *adana$$a and o"#, ,, Chand"a((a and An" 0>$ the co#rt ma*e the ,ollo8ing oservation 8ith regar*s to the principle o, estoppel concerning 4ection 110 o, the 'n*ian vi*ence &ct$ 1%?2G !-e doubt whether the court while determining whether the conduct of a particular party amounts to an estoppel, could travel beyond the provisions of 1ection 223 of the &vidence /ct.% The co#rt *enie* to accept the contention that the la8 o, estoppel ! representation is not con,ine* to the provisions o, 4ection 110 o, the vi*ence &ct.
40 (.4. "a*anappa &n* Ors v. Chan*ramma &n* &nr.$ 1960 &'( 1%12
17
'n the lan*mark 5#*gement o, Sou"u(ull , 8an&!# *?&, Co, 04$ the appellants in this case conten*e* that 4ections ,rom 110 to 11? as given in Chapter ''' o, the 'n*ian vi*ence &ct$ 1%?2 la! *o8n the onl! r#les o, estoppel 8hich are no8 implemente* #n*er the ,orce o, la8 in the then e:isting 'n*ia #n*er the British r#le. The! ,#rther conten*e* that ! virt#e o, 4ection o, the a,orementione* &ct$ all r#les an* *octrines o, the vi*ence a8 shall e repeale* e:cept those that are in the &ct itsel,. The co#rt hel* the ,ollo8ing opinionG !*he ourts here would then be debarred from entertaining any questions in the nature of estoppel which did not come within the scope of 1ections 223 to 224, however important those questions might be to the due administration of the law.%56 The! hel* that the arg#ment ecomes erroneo#s ass#mption that all r#les o, estoppel are also r#les o, evi*ence. B#t still$ the Co#rt recogniPe* the principle o, estoppel eing a part o, the a8 o, vi*ence$ ! statingG !-here a man has made a representation to another of a particular fact or state of circumstances, and has thereby wilfully induced that o ther to act upon that representation and to alter his own previous position, he is estopped as against that person from proving that the fact or state of circumstances was not true. n such a case the rule of estoppel becomes so far a rule of evidence, that evidence is not admissible to disprove the fact or state of circumstances which was represented to e(ist.%5
41 ;1%%)= '( 0 Cal 669
42 '*. at para 1/.
43 '*. at para 10.
18
WHEN ESTOPPEL IS NOT ATTRACTED
'n case o, S, S!thu"a(an , R, V!n-ata"a(an 00$ the appellant initiall! s#mitte* himsel, to the 5#ris*iction o, the Aoint irector o, 4chool *#cation ;appellate a#thorit!= regar*ing his promotion$ #t later on challenge* the *ecision o, the app ellate a#thorit!. 'n these circ#mstances$ the 4#preme Co#rt hel* that the appellant co#l* not e estoppe*./0 No E#to$$!l in C"i(inal Ca#!#)
stoppel is a r#le o, civil actions. 't has no application to criminal procee*ings$ tho#gh in s#ch procee*ings matters 8hich in civil actions create an estoppel are #s#all! so cogent that it 8o#l* e almost #seless to set#p a *i,,erent stor!./6 & petition 8as ,ile* ,or #ashing the procee*ings #n*er sections /9%& an* 3)/ o, '7C an* #n*er the o8r! 7rohiition &ct eca#se o, an agreement et8een the parties. The petition 8as *ismisse* as the part! to the agreement 8as not o#n* ! an #nla8,#l compromise an* hence there 8as no #estion o, estoppel either./? E#to$$!l #hould '! $l!ad!d) Onu# o? $"oin& th! Pl!a
The r#le o, estoppel *epen*s ,or its application on certain o, ,act. /% 't sho#l*$ there,ore$ e speci,icall!$ plea*e*/9 #nless there is no opport#nit! o, *oing so$ e.g.$ in cases 8here there are no
44 4. 4eth#raman v. (. enkataraman$ ;2))?= 6 4CC 3%2.
45 '*. at 392.
46 . v. "aha (am$ 19 Cr A 610.
47 "a*h#miri s#r!a Nara!an v. state$ 2))3 Cr A NOC ?0 ;-ant=.
48 4heo Tahal (am v. Bmaek 4h#k#l$ 03 & ?/?< 1931 & 6%9 ;693=
49 '*.
19
plea*ings$ in 8hich case the part! rel!ing on estoppel m#st raise it ! an o5ection in other ,orm at the earliest possile stage o, the procee*ing.0) @here estoppel is not speci,icall! plea*e*$ a part! 8ill not permitte* to rel! it at a s#se#ent stage.01 & person is entitle* to plea* estoppel in his o8n in*ivi*#al character an* not as a representative o, his assignees.02
CONCLUSION
HstoppelsH in the sense in 8hich the term is #se* in nglish legal phraseolog!$ are matter o, in,inite variet!$ an* are ! no means con,ine* to s#5ects 8hich are *ealt 8ith in Chapter ''' o, The 'n*ian vi*ence &ct. & man ma! e estopple* not onl! ,rom giving partic#lar evi*ence$ #t ,rom *oing acts$ or rel!ing #pon an! partic#lar arg#ments oil contention 8hich the r#les o, e#it! an* goo* conscience prevent him ,rom #sing as against his opponent. & representation can e ma*e ! 8or*s or con*#ct. <ho#gh the representation m#st e clear an* #namig#o#s$ a representation can e in,erre* ,rom silence 8here there is a *#t! to speak or ,rom negligence 8here a *#t! o, care has arisen. n*er nglish la8$ estoppel ! representation o, ,act #s#all! acts as a *e,ense$ tho#gh it ma! act in s#pport o, a ca#se o, action or co#nterclaim. stoppel 8as once regar*e* as a r#le or ranch o, the la8 o, evi*ence$ #t the etter opinion$ an* that 8hich no8 prevails$ is that it is more properl! a ranch o, the s#stantive la8. <ho#gh in some respects it might e regar*e* as 8ithin the ,iel* o, proce*#re. 'n an! event$ ho8ever$ it is c#stomar! to treat the s#5ect to some e:tent in 8orks on evi*ence$ an* it is clearl! 8ithin the scope o, o#r plan to treat it so ,ar as #estions o, evi*ence are concerne* 8hen estoppel is involve* as a partic#lar iss#e in a case.
504#pra 6$ at /23 Aa*o 4ingh v. Bish#nath &$ 19/2 7 ?1.
51 '*.
52 C.-. "ehta v. 7atel Naran*as arihai$ &'( 19%3 ;9= 4C 119.
20
1I1LIO8RAPH+
•
The octrine O, stoppel &s & (#le O, vi*ence< &n Overvie8$ &vailale at
•
http<i5l*ai.thela8riga*e.com8pGcontent#ploa*s2)1011#vra54hha#r!a.p*, Loctrine o, @aiver an* Constit#tion o, 'n*iaD$ availale at
•
http<888.*esikanoon.co.in2)1/)0constit#tionalGla8G*octrineGo,G8aiver.html http<888.step.orgproprietar!GestoppelGlookingGothG,or8ar*Gan*GackGa,terGthornerGvG
•
ma5or 7romissor! stoppel$ availale at http<888.legalservicein*ia.comarticlel2/9G 7romissor!Gstoppel.html ". "orir$ Te:took on the a8 o, vi*ence$ 9th e*.$ 2)11. Bat#k al$ The a8 o, vi*ence$ 12th e*.$ 2)1/. ice! "orris > Collins on the Con,lict o, a8s$ 1/th e*. 2))6
21
