Introduction

The Law of Estoppel provides a rule of evidence which prevents a person from denying or contradicting a fact that they previously asserted or caused another party to believe in, especially if the other party relied on that assertion to their detriment. It is designed to avoid unfairness that arises when someone changes their stance on a fact they previously represented, leading to harm for someone who relied on that fact.

Section 121 to 123 of Chapter VIII of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023(BSA) deals with the Doctrine of Estoppel [Earlier it was dealt under the Section 115-117 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872]. It is based upon the maxim 'allegans contraria non est audiendus' which means a person alleging contradictory facts should not be heard.

DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL

(Note: Section 121 of BSA corresponds to Section 115 of IEA)

Estoppel is a principle of equity which provides that when one person had induced another person by his aet, omission or declaration to believe something to-be-true-and the other person had taken some steps-on believing upon the statement. It affects the substantive rights of the parties.

Section 121 of BSA lays down 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 doctrine of estoppel is based upon the law laid down in Pickard v. Sears (1837), In this case, It was held that where a person by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things and induces 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 same time.

Essentials of Estoppel

To invoke the doctrine of estoppel, following three conditions must be satisfied:

Representation by a Person to Another:

The representation to form the basis of an estoppel may be made either by statement or by conduct. Certain general prepositions are applicable whatever manner the representation may be made.

Intention of being Acted Upon: 

It is not necessary that representation should be false to the knowledge of the party making it provided that it is intended to be acted upon in the manner in which it was acted upon or the person who makes it so conduct himself that a reasonable man would take the representation to be true and believe that it was meant that he should act upon it in that manner.

The Other Shall have Acted Upon Said Representation: 

To invoke the benefit of estoppel it has to be proved that representation has been acted The representation must have acted upon taking it to be true by the party to whom it was made. Estoppel can arise only if a party to a proceeding has altered his position on the faith of a representation or promise made by another.

In the case of Pratima Chowdhary v. Kalpana Mukherjee (2014), It was held that altering of position should be such that it would be inequitable to require him to revert back to original position.

In the case of B.Coleman and Co. v. P.P. Das Gupta (1970), It was held that the burden of proving the ingredients of this section lies on the party claiming estoppel.

The representation which is basis for the rule must be clear and unambiguous and not indefinite.

The following eight conditions must be satisfied to bring a case within the scope of estoppel as laid down in Chhaganlal Mehta v. Haribhai Patel (1982):

• There must have been a representation by a person to another person, which may be in any form, a declaration or an act or an omission.

• Such representation must have been of the existence of a fact and not of future promises or intention.

• The representation must have been meant to have been relied upon.

• There must have been belief on the part of the other party in its truth.

• There must have been some action on the faith of that declaration, act or omission. In other words, such declarations, etc., must have actually caused the other person to act on the faith of it and to alter his 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. There can be no estoppel if such a person was aware of the true state of affairs or if he had means of such knowledge.

• Only the person to whom the representation was made or for whom it was designed can avail of the doctrine. The burden of proving estoppel lies on the person who has acted on such a belief.

• Where the plea of estoppel is not set up in the pleading, it cannot be availed of later.

• No action arises on the estoppel itself. It is not a cause of action. It may assist in enforcing a cause of action.

Kinds of Estoppel

There are several kinds of estoppel recognized under the Law:

1. Estoppel by Matter of Record
2. Estoppel by Deed
3. Estoppel in Pais
4. Estoppel by Silence

Estoppel by Matter of Record: This type of estoppel arises from a judgment or decree given by a competent court. A party cannot deny the truth of any matter that was determined in a previous judgment between the same parties on the same issue. Essentially, it bars re-litigation of the same issues that have already been decided. Estoppel by matter of record is concerned with the effect of judgments and their admissibility in evidence and this kind of estoppel is dealt with in Section 11 to 14 CPC and Section 34-38 of BSA.

Estoppel by Deed: Where in deed made between parties and verified by their seals, there is a statement of fact, an estoppel results and is called estoppel by deed. It is based on the principle that when a person has entered into a solemn engagement by deed under his hand, he shall not be permitted to deny any matter which he has asserted. It is rule of evidence according to which certain evidence is taken to be of high and conclusive nature as to admit of no contradictory proof.

Estoppel by Matter in Pais: In pais means in the country or before the public. Estoppel in pais applies in respect of matters outside a record or deed. Estoppel in pais arises from agreement or contract and from act or conduct of misrepresentation which has induced a change of position in accordance with the intention of the party against whom the estoppel is alleged. The ways in which a person may make such representation are infinite. A person may speak or write, act or omit to act, or act negligently. The estoppel dealt under Section 121,122 and 123 of BSA is a kind of estoppel in pais.

Estoppel by Silence: This is a form of estoppel where a party's silence or failure to correct a misunderstanding may lead another to believe in a certain state of affairs. If the party does not speak up or correct the misapprehension, they may be estopped from later contradicting what was believed

SPECIAL INSTANCES OF ESTOPPEL

Estoppel by conduct: It means that a party is prevented from relying on true facts on account of his conduct. If a man by his conduct has intimated that he consents to an act which has been done and that he will offer no opposition to that although it could not have been lawfully done without his consent and thereby induces others to do that from which they would otherwise might have abstained, he cannot question legality of the act.

In the case of Mahboob shah v. Syed Ismail (1995), It was held that where in sale of land by a muslim father the son attested the sale deed and raised no objection thereafter though sale was against his interest, the son is estopped from challenging the sale subsequently.

Exception to Estoppel

No Estoppel Against a Minor: Where a minor represents fraudulently or otherwise that he is of major age and thereby induces another to enter into a contract with him, then in an action founded on contract, the infant is not estopped from setting up infancy as a plea. However, equity demands that he should not retain a benefit which he had obtained by his fraudulent conduct.

When True Facts are Known to Both the

Parties: Law laid down in Section 121 of BSA does not apply to a case where the statement relied upon is made to a person who knows the real facts and is not misled by the untrue statement (Madnappa v Chandramma, 1965).

Fraud or Negligence on the Part of Other Party: If the other party does not believe the representation but acts independently of such belief, or in cases where the person to whom representation is made is under a duty to make a further inquiry, the estoppel will not operate. Likewise, if there is fraud on the part of the other party, which could be detected by the promisor with ordinary care, the estoppel will not operate.

No Estoppel on a Point of Law: Estoppel applies to factual beliefs, not legal opinions. One cannot be estopped from challenging the effectiveness of something (e.g., a partition deed) due to a belief about the law (e.g., registration). Representations under Section 121 must be about facts, not about law or opinion. (Union of India v. ICS. Subramaniam, 1989).

No Estoppel Against Statute: the principle of estoppel cannot be invoked to defeat the plain provision of a statute. There is no estoppel against an act of the legislature.

No Estoppel in Criminal Law: It is a rule of civil law and it has no application in criminal law.

ESTOPPEL OF TENANT AND OF LICENSEE OF PERSON IN POSSESSION

(Note: Section 122 of BSA corresponds to Section 116 of IEA)

Section 122 deals with estoppel between a tenant and his landlord and licensee and licensor.

Once a tenant enters into a relationship of landlord and tenant, receives the possession of the property and finally enters into the premise, during the period of such possession or any time thereafter may deny things or course of action by the landlord which is against what was mentioned in the agreement. A tenant in no case claims that the landlord has no title over the property.

A person who came upon immovable property by the license of the person in possession cannot deny that the person so in possession had a title at the time when such license was given.

ESTOPPEL OF ACCEPTOR OF BILL OF EXCHANGE, BAILEE OR LICENSEE

(Note: Section 123 of BSA corresponds to Section 117 of IEA)

Section 123 states that an acceptor of a bill of exchange cannot deny that the drawer had authority to draw such bill or to endorse it but he may deny that the bill was really drawn by the person by whom it purports to have been drawn.

A bailee or licensee cannot deny that his bailor or licensor had authority to make bailment or grant the license but a bailee if he delivers the goods bailed to third person. may prove that such person had a right to them as against the bailor.

DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

The doctrine of promissory estoppel differs certainly from the doctrine embodied in Section 121 of the BSA. It primarily hinges as an exception to law of consideration under the Contract Law. Doctrine of promissory estoppel has been evolved by the court on the principle of equity to avoid injustice and takes its origin from jurisdiction assumed by the courts of equity to intervene in the case to prevent fraud.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a principle in contract law that prevents a party from going back on a promise or representation that another party has relied upon to their detriment. Unlike traditional estoppel, which often applies to matters of fact or legal issues, promissory estoppel specifically deals with promises or representations made without formal consideration.

When one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a promise or assurance which was intended to affect the legal relationship between them and to be acted on accordingly then, once the other party has taken him at his word and acted on it, the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to their previous legal relations as if no such promise or assurance has been made by him but he must accept their legal relation subject to qualification which he himself has so introduced.

In the case of M.P. Mathur v. D.T.C. (2007), It was held that the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel necessitates striking a balance between individual right and larger public interest. The scope of the plea of doctrine of promissory estoppel against the government may be summed up as follows:

• The plea of promissory estoppel is not available against the exercise of the legislative functions of the state.

• The doctrine cannot be invoked for preventing the government from discharging its function under the law or to act contrary to law.

• When the officer of the government acts outside the scope of his authority the plea of promissory estoppel is not available. The doctrine of ultra vires will come into operation and the government cannot be held bound by unauthorized acts of its officers.

In the case of Ramnath Sahu v. Union of India (1996), It was held that promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the government or a public authority to carry out a representation or a promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the government or of the public authority to make. The Kerala High Court also observed the similar view in P.V. Balakrishnan v. State of Kerala (1994) that where sanction or promise is ultravires of the authority, no estoppel arises.

What is the Doctrine of Estoppel under Section 121 of the BSA?

The Doctrine of Estoppel under Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) prevents a person from denying a fact in court if they have already caused another person to believe it to be true and acted upon it. It upholds honesty and consistency in legal dealings.

What are the key elements required to apply estoppel under Section 121?

To invoke estoppel under Section 121, three key conditions must be met: • A person made a representation (by words or conduct) • Another person believed it and acted upon it • It would be unjust to allow the first person to deny the truth later

Can estoppel be used against a minor or someone who acted without authority?

No, estoppel cannot generally be applied against a minor, a person of unsound mind, or someone acting without legal authority. Section 121 requires that the person making the representation must be competent to do so.

Difference BETWEEN ESTOPPEL AND RES-JUDICATA

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ESTOPPEL AND CONCLUSIVE PROOF

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ESTOPPEL AND PRSUMPTION

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ESTOPPEL AND ADMISSION