Estoppel has been derived from English word ‘estop’. Section 115 of the Evidence
Act are in one sense a rule of evidence and are founded upon the well -known
doctrine laid down in Pickard v. Sears(1837). In this case Lord Chief Justice
Denman observed: “Where one by his word or conduct willfully causes another to
believe for the existence of a certain state of thing and induced him to act on that
belief so as to alter his own previous position, the former is concluded from
averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at the first time.”
The object of estoppel is to prevent fraud and secure justice between the parties by
promotion of honesty and good faith. Therefore, where one person makes a
misrepresentation to the other about a fact he would not be shut out by the rule of
estoppel, if that other person knew the true state of facts and must consequently not
have been misled by the misrepresentation.
KINDS OF ESTOPPEL–
Sir Adward Coke classified estoppel into three categories –
- Estoppel by matter of record/judgment– ‘Estoppel by record’ which is known
in English Law is substantially same to ‘Res Judicata’ in Indian Law. This type of
estoppel is based upon ‘Final Judgment of Competent Court’. The basis of estoppel
by record is the conclusiveness of judgment. Lockyer v. Ferryman (1876) is
leading case on this point. Suit for declaration of marriage against a woman was
brought and dismissed. After her death it was again brought. It was dismissed on the
ground of estoppel by record. In this case Lord Blackburn observed, “The rule of
res judicata is always be on two grounds:
(a) Public policy that there should be an end to litigation; and
(b) Hardship to the individual. He should not be vexed twice for the same cause”.
- Estoppel by matter in writing/ deed– Estoppel by deed or writing is that a party
who executes a deed is estopped in a court of law from saying that the facts stated in
the deed are not truly stated.
- Estoppel by in paiis/ pais/ conduct [Sections 115 to 117]– Doctrine of estoppel
is based on Latin maxim which is “Allegans contraria non est audiendus”.It means
contrary allegation should not be heard. Yesterday if you have said, tomorrow you
cannot deny your previous statement. Sections 115 to 117 encompasses not just rule
of estoppel by representation or conduct but also by agreement. Sections 115 to 117
deals rule of evidence. Section 115 is based on Pickard v. Sears decided by Lord
Denman in 1837 in which he observed, “Where one by his word or conduct
willfully causes another to believe for the existence of a certain state of thing and
induced him to act on that belief so as to alter his own previous position, the former
is concluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at
the first time.”
- Section 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.
- 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.
SECTION 116 ESTOPPEL OF TENANT AND OF LICENSEE OF PERSON
- Estoppel of-
(1) Tenant– 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
(2) Licensee– No person who came upon any immovable property by the license 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 license was given.
SECTION 117 ESTOPPEL OF ACCEPTOR OF BILL OF EXCHANGE,
BAILEE AND LICENSEE-
(1) Acceptor– 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;
(2) Bailee– Nor shall any bailee be permitted to deny that his bailor had, at the time
when the bailment commenced, authority to make such bailment.
(3) Licensee -Nor shall any licensee be permitted to deny that his licensor had, at
the time when the license commenced, authority to grant such license.
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.
INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 115-
To bring the case within the scope of estoppel as defined in section 115 of the
- There must be a representation by a person or his authorised 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;
- There 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 the proximate
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 true 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. A person is entitled to plead estoppel in his own individual
character and not as a representative of his assignee.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ESTOPPEL AND ADMISSION–
- The difference between admission and estoppel is a marked one.
• Admissions being declarations against an interest are good evidence but they
are not conclusive and a party is always at liberty to withdraw admissions by
proving that they are either mistaken or untrue.
• But estoppel creates an absolute bar.
NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST RIGHT–
- It may be pointed out that estoppel deals with questions of facts and not of rights. A
man is not estopped from asserting a right which he had said that he will not assert.
It is also a well-known principle that there can be no estoppel against a statute.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ESTOPPEL AND WAIVER-
(1) Provash Chandra Dalui & Anr. v. Biswanath Banerjee & Anr(April 3,
The essential element of waiver is that there must be a voluntary and intentional
relinquishment of a known right or such conduct as warrants the inference of the
relinquishment of such right.
• Waiver is distinct from estoppel in that in waiver the essential element is
actual intent to abandon or surrender right,
• while in estoppel such intent is immaterial. The necessary condition is the
detriment of the other party by the conduct of the one estopped. An estoppel
may result though the party estopped did not intend to lose any existing right.
Thus voluntary choice is the essence of waiver for which there must have
existed an opportunity for a choice between the relinquishment and the
conferment of the right in question.
(2) Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi & Rajasthan &
Waiver differs from estoppel in the sense that it is contractual and is an agreement
to release or not to assert a right; estoppel is a rule of evidence.
- Shri Krishnan v. The Kurukshetra University (Supreme Court, November 17,
Fact – He was the student of LL.B. This case was regarding short of attendance. In
Supreme Court observed, “It is obvious that during this period of four to five
months it was the duty of the University authorities to scrutinize the form in order to
find out whether it was in order. Equally it was the duty of the Head of the
Department of Law, before submitting the form to the University to see that the
form complied with all the requirements of law. If neither the Head of the
Department nor the University authorities took care to scrutinize the admission
form, then the question of the appellant committing a fraud did not arise. It is well
settled that where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover
the truth by due diligence, fraud is not proved. It was neither a case of suggestion
falsi, or suppression yeri. The appellant never wrote to the University authorities
that he attended the prescribed number of lectures. There was ample time and
opportunity for the University authorities to have found out the defect. In these
circumstances, therefore, if the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities
which the admission form contained and allowed the appellant to appear in part I
Examination in April 1972, then by force of the University Statute the University
had no power to withdraw the candidature of the appellant”. Estoppel was applied
against Kurukshetra University. It is well settled that where a person on whom fraud
is committed is in a position to discover the truth by due diligence, there no
question of fraud aroused. University had ample time to scrutinize, but it failed.
This deficiency was regarding shortage in attendance.
- Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development
(Supreme Court, Sept. 2, 1994)
In this case Kumari Madhuri Patil got caste certificate for which she was not
entitled. She took admission in BDS course in Scheduled Castes. Her admission
was cancelled as candidate of Scheduled Caste. In this case Supreme Court said,
“A party that seeks equity, must come with clean hands”. He who comes to the
court with false claim, cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to
exercise equity jurisdiction in his favor. In case of fraud, estoppel will not be
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. 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.
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at email@example.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.
We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge