DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL—MEANING AND INTRODUCTION

Estoppel is a set of doctrines by the virtue of which a court prevents a litigant from taking an
action the litigant normally would have the right to take, in order to prevent an inequitable result.
Estoppel occurs when a party "reasonably relies on the promise of another party, and because of
the reliance is injured or damaged".  Estoppel precludes "a person from denying, or asserting
anything to the contrary of, that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth,
either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations,
either express or implied

Therefore, Estoppel in simple words is a bar which prevents a party from asserting a fact or
putting up claim inconsistent with the position he previously took. It is said to be a rule which
preludes a person from saying one thing at one time and another thing, totally in consistent with
the earlier one, at another stage1.
 
In Black’s New Dictionary, “estoppel” is indicated to mean “that a party is prevented by his
own acts from claiming a right to the detriment of other party who was entitled to rely on such
conduct and has acted accordingly.”
 
According to Oxford Dictionary of Law estoppel is “a rule of evidence or a rule of law that
prevents a person from denying the truth of a statement he has made or from denying facts that
he has alleged to exist, The denial must have been acted upon (probably to his disadvantage) by
the person who wishes to take advantage of the estoppel or his position must have been altered as
a result2. When a 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 the thing. The former person is thus stopped from denying
the truth of his previous statement. He, thus, cannot both approbate and reprobate, because of
invocation of rule of estoppel against him.

1
Kumar, Narender; Nature and Concepts of Administrative Law, 1st Ed., Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad,2011,
p. 366

2
Quoted inSharma Transport v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 322.
In other words, estoppel is a rule, whereby a party is precluded from or to say estopped from
denying the existence of some state of facts which he had previously asserted and on which the
other party has relied or is entitled to rely upon. According to Wade and Forsyth the basic
principle of estoppel is that a person who by some statement or representation or representation
of face causes the other to act to his determent in reliance on the truth of it is not allowed to deny
it later, even though it is wrong. Estoppel, thus, gives way to justice to prevail over the truth3.

EVOLUTION OF THE RULE

The expression 'Estoppel' is derived from the French word 'Estoup' which means, 'shut the
mouth". It states that when a person by declaration (act or omission) makes or induces another to
believe a thing, he cannot deny its truth subsequently, and thereby the other person cannot be
estopped from proceeding upon such declaration. Estoppel is a rule of equity or law and is a rule
of evidence which is based on the maxim ‘Allegans contraria non est audindus’ i.e. person
alleging contrary facts will not be heard. The principle provides that a man cannot approbate or
reprobate or that man shall not be allowed to say one thing at a time or different thing at another
time.

This principle was found from a famous English case Pickard v. Sears (1837) stating that it is
inequitable and unjust to allow a person to deny the truth of a statement which he has made to
another and the other person has acted on it believing it to be true. The objective behind this is to
prevent fraud and secure justice between parties by promotion of justice and good faith.

The study of the evolution of the doctrine of estoppel can be done by comparing its development
in English law and Indian law.

The foundation for this doctrine was first laid down in English Law, in the case of Hughes v.
Metropolitan Railway Co. [22] In the particular case, Hughes leased his land to Metropolitan
Railway Company to carry out repair work. The defendants were required to complete it in 6

3
Wade, H.W.R. & Forsyth, C.F.; Administrative Law, 9th Ed., Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2006, p.237
months time period, and if it failed the lease would stand forfeited. The parties to the agreement
negotiated another agreement by which the railway company was to purchase the freehold of the
land. Both the parties were under the delusion that transfer of property would take place and
therefore the defendants didn’t carry out the repair work. He believed that sooner he would be
having the freehold of the property and those repairs are of no use to him. But towards the end of
the 6 months period, the negotiation dissolved and the plaintiff gave the notice to forfeit the
lease. The court upheld that when negotiation was initiated there was an implied promise to
forfeit the lease with respect to the limited time period. The Railway company acted upon this
promise which proved out to be detrimental to them. The doctrine of estoppel was thus applied
and the railway company was given more time to complete the repair work. 

Even after this case, the doctrine of estoppel had not gained much attention until Lord Denning
delivered his judgement in the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House
Ltd.  [23] The defendants, High Trees, rented his flat to the plaintiff in return for a certain amount
of money. Due to the outbreak of World War II this amount was reduced to half as his
occupancy rate was decreasing. When the war ended the defendant continued to pay half of the
amount of rent, claiming that the plaintiff had not mentioned any time period while entering into
the agreement. Plaintiffs sued the defendant for payment of the full amount of rent. 

Applying the principle of estoppel laid down in the case of Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway
Co. [24] the court said that it was implied that the reduced rate is limited to the time till the war
continues, and so the defendants are liable to pay the full rent. 

The Doctrine of estoppel in general and promissory estoppel, in particular, was recognized in
India from the case of Sourujmull And Ors. v. The Ganges Manufacturing Co.[25],  where the
Calcutta High Court determined that this doctrine would also apply in other situations where a
person can be estopped from performing certain acts or depending completely upon particular
arguments or claim or contention. This implies, as laid down in the judgement, that the doctrine
of estoppel is not limited to the law of evidence. In the case of Jindal Thermal Power Co. Ltd v.
Karnataka Transmission Corporation Ltd (2005) it has been said that this doctrine appertains to
equity and fairness in action.
 In Indira Bai v. Nand Kishore ,Sahai, J., stated “Estoppel is a rule of equity flowing out of
fairness striking on behavior deficient in good faith. It operates as a check on spurious
conducting by preventing the inducer from taking advantage and assailing forfeiture already
accomplished. It is invoked and applied to aid the law in administration of justice. But for it great
many injustices may have been perpetrated.”

ESTOPPEL – AS A RULE OF EVIDENCE

Estoppel is based on the maxim, allegans contraria non est audiendus (a person alleging
contradictory facts should not be heard) and is that kind of proesumptio juris et de jure, where
the fact presumed is taken to be true,not as against all the world, but as against a particular party,
and that only by reason of some act done, it is in truth a kind of argumentum ad hominern.
Hence it appears that estoppels' must not be understood as synonymous with "conclusive
evidences”—the former being conclusions drawn by law against parties from particular facts,
while by the latter is meant some piece or mass of evidence, sufficiently strong to generate
conviction in the mind of a tribunal, or rendered conclusive on a party, either by common or
statute law.

In Pickard v. Sears, the mortgagee of the machinery permitted it to remain in the possession of
the mortgagor, against whom a judgment was executed. The machinery was seized in execution,
but although the mortgagee spoke to the judgment creditors attorney he foolishly made no
reference to the fact that machinery in which he had an interest had been seized to pay another
man’s debt, nor did he make any claim to the machinery for some time. When he eventually did
so, it was held that he might be estopped from denying that the machinery was the debtor’s, as
his conduct amounted to a willful representation to that effect.

Thus where the acquittal order of a Magistrate on a minor offence was set aside and the accused

committed for trial on a major offence, the principle of issue estoppel will not apply.
Estoppel, as a rule of evidence, may be read in distinction to equitable principle of promissory
estoppel. While the former is more correctly described as “a principle of law”, the latter is known
as a rule of equity. As a principle of law estoppel applies only to representations about past or
present facts4. The basic premise of estoppel is that a person, who by some statement or
representation of facts causes another act in reliance on the truth of it, is not allowed to deny it
later, even though it is wrong.

SCOPE OF DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL

Appearing initially as a negative aspect in the field of evidence, the principle has extended its

scope. Ever since the principle of estoppel has been expounded and applied in judicial

proceedings there has been a conflict of views as to whether estoppel is a rule of evidence or a
rule of substantive law.

In the case of R.S. Madanappa and ors. v.. Chandramma and Anr, the court made the following
observation with regards to the principle of estoppel concerning Section 115 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872-
“We doubt whether the court while determining whether the conduct of a particular
party amounts to an estoppel, could travel beyond the provisions of Section 115 of the
Evidence Act.”
The court denied to accept the contention that the law of estoppel by representation is not
confined to the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act.
In the landmark judgement of Ganges Mfg. Co. v. Sourujmull, the appellants in this case
contended that Sections from 115 to 117 as given in Chapter VIII of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 lay down the only rules of estoppel which are now implemented under the force of law in
the then existing India under the British rule. They further contended that by virtue of Section of
the aforementioned Act, all rules and doctrines of the Evidence Law shall be repealed except
those that are in the Act itself. The court held the following opinion-

4
Wade, H.W.R. & Forsyth, C.F.; Administrative Law, 9th Ed., Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2006,
p.236
 “The Courts here would then be debarred from entertaining any questions in the
nature of estoppel which did not come within the scope of Sections 115 to 117,however
important those questions might be to the due administration of the law.”
They held that the argument becomes erroneous assumption that all rules of estoppel are also
rules of evidence. But still, the Court recognized the principle of estoppel being a part of the Law
of Evidence, by stating-
“Where a man has made a representation to another of a particular fact or state of
circumstances, and has thereby wilfully induced that other 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. In 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 exist.”

NATURE OF ESTOPPEL IN INDIA

The precise and exact nature of an estoppel has lead different opinions. An estoppel has at least
three aspects.

(1) As a Rule of Evidence

There is high authority for the view that estoppel is only a rule of evidence.Estoppel has some

similarity to an irrefutable presumption of law, and has been so treated for one of its effects is to
prevent the rebuttal of facts alleged by the other party. But an estoppel has two characteristics of
evidence to distinguish it from such a presumption which is a rule of substantive law. An
estoppel may be waived by the party who would otherwise benefit by it; and frequently operates
only between the parties to an action.

(2) As a Matter of Pleading

As per the jurist Stephen fitzjames, estoppels belong rather to the law of pleading than to that of

evidence. Subject to minor exceptions, a party who proposes to rely on an estoppel must raise
this point and state the relevant facts in his pleading. This requirement involves an exception to

the rule that evidence should not be pleaded, but it does not show that estoppel is not a rule of
evidence. Failure to plead an estoppel may amount to a waiver, and thus may result in making

admissible facts which would otherwise be excluded.

(3) As Substantive Law

The doctrine of estoppel belongs rather to substantive than to adjective law. Yet it has been

shown that estoppels are not on the same footing as the rules of Substantive law embodied in

irrefutable presumptions, and estoppels will not generally found a cause of action at common

law, for they involve no claim. However, it is said that they may support claims to equitable

relief and they may amount to a defense when they prevent a plaintiff proving some facts,

essential to his case. Accordingly, estoppels have some characteristics of substantive law.

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF ESTOPPEL

1. Estoppels must be reciprocal or mutual
This statement seems to mean that an estoppel must bind both parties to the litigation.
2. Estoppels cannot circumvent the Law

Hence the contractual incapacity of a minor cannot be evaded by any estoppel against asserting

his Infancy, even though he has obtained a loan by a false representation that he was an adult.
And a tenant, who fails to raise a defense that his rent is in excess Of the standard rent permitted

by statute, is not estopped from making a subsequent application to determine the lawful rent.

3. Estoppels must be certain

The statement that an estoppel must be clear, precise or unambiguous primarily refers to the

representation on which an estoppel by conduct may be founded.

4. Conflicting Estoppels Cancel each Other
The classical example is Prof. Coke's statement that "estoppel against estoppel both put the

matter at large”.
5. Fulfilling Doctrine of Estoppel
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine and the petitioners cannot ask the

Court to apply the same to compel something which is inequitable, one who seeks equity must
do equity. In our society larger public must get precedence over individual interest or interest of
comparatively smaller section of society.

ESTOPPEL BY ITSELF DOES NOT CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION OR TITLE

Estoppel, except as a bar to testimony, has no operation or efficacy whatsoever. Emphatically it

is not a cause of action in itself; nor does it create one, though the application of this, as of any
other rule of evidence in the course of litigation, may result in a total or partial establishment or
disestablishment of the case made by one or other of the parties.
Estoppel merely operates as a bar to the suit; it does not extinguish the right. Estoppel deals with

questions of fact and not question of right. In other words, there is no general rule of law that a

man is estopped from asserting a right which he has said that he will not Estoppel by

representation is one of those rules of evidence which are personal to the parties, and does not

belong to that class of rules which relate to titles or rights against the world. As between the

parties to the representation, therefore, rule of estoppel may affect or create substantive rights. It

may enable a party as against another party to claim a right of property which in fact he does not

possess,and in this sense it may more correctly be viewed as a substantive rule of law. Third

parties are not affected by the rule at all. Waiver, as distinguished from estoppel, is contractual. It

is an agreement to release or not to assert a right, and May, therefore, constitute a cause of

action.8 Estoppel is different from contract in its nature and consequences.

WHEN ESTOPPEL IS NOT ATTRACTED?

In case of S. Sethuraman v. R. Venkataraman, the appellant initially submitted himself to the

jurisdiction of the Joint Director of School Education (appellate authority) regarding his
promotion, but later on challenged the decision of the appellate authority. In these circumstances,
the Supreme Court held that the appellant could not be estopped.
  No Estoppel in Criminal Cases:
Estoppel is a rule of civil actions. It has no application to criminal proceedings, though in such

proceedings matters which in civil actions create an estoppel are usually so cogent that it would
be almost useless to setup a different story.
A petition was filed for quashing the proceedings under sections 498A and 304 of IPC and under

the Dowry Prohibition Act because of an agreement between the parties. The petition was

dismissed as the party to the agreement was not bound by an unlawful compromise and hence
there was no question of estoppel either.
 Estoppel should be pleaded: Onus of proving the Plea
The rule of estoppel depends for its application on certain of fact. It should, therefore, be

specifically, pleaded unless there is no opportunity of doing so, e.g., in cases where there are no

pleadings, in which case the party relying on estoppel must raise it by an objection in other form

at the earliest possible stage of the proceeding.

Where estoppel is not specifically pleaded, a party will not permitted to rely it at a subsequent

stage. A person is entitled to plead estoppel in his own individual character and not as a
representative of his assignees.

 No estoppel against minor 

Section 3 of The Maturity Act’, 1875 defines a minor to be a person who is under the age of 18
years and Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 says that parties entering into a contract
should be competent, i.e. should be a major, of sound mind and barred by no law to enter into a
contract. A contract with a minor is void ab initio which means void from the very beginning. 
So when a minor misrepresenting himself to a major enters into a contract, then he cannot be
made liable for it, not even on the grounds of estoppel. The minor can always plead that at the
time of entering into the contract he was a minor. 

In the case of Ajudhia Prasad And Anr. v. Chandan Lal And Anr. [29] two minors fraudulently
entered into a mortgage deed by concealing the fact that they were minor as a guardian has been
appointed for them under the Wards Act. The court held that no estoppel would arise in this
case. 

There are three sections under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which talks about the situations
where the plea of estoppel can be taken and where it cannot be taken, and they are Section 115,
116 and 117.

KINDS OF ESTOPPEL

Spencer Bower and Turner have classified estoppels into three kinds:
(i) estoppel by matter of record;
(ii) estoppel by matter in writing; and
(iii) estoppel by matter in paiis.

The first two are sometimes referred to as technical estoppels as distinguished from acquitable

estoppels or estoppel in paiis. All these kinds have been discussed under Indian law in various
cases

I. Estoppel by Matter of Record or Estoppel by Res Judicata

Alike res judicata once a court has given the judgement, the parties, their representatives, their
executors, etc. all are bound by that decision. This doctrine stops the parties to a case, from
raising another suit in the same matter or to dispute the facts of the case after the decision has
been made by the court.
It belongs more properly to the province of the pure procedure and is so dealt with in the Indian

legislation. Res judicata is an estoppel by judgment. It embraces all those rules, the common

characteristic of which is that final judicial decision of a tribunal of competent jurisdiction, once

pronounced between parties litigant, cannot be contradicted by anyone, as against any other of

such parties, in any subsequent litigation between the same parties respecting the same subject-

matter.

There is a difference in the principles upon which the doctrines of res judicata and estoppel by

representation are based. Res judicata in this country is founded on the principle that there should
be an end to litigation as to any issue between the parties when once that issue has been directly
determined between them by a Court of competent jurisdiction, and it affects not only the
original parties but all others afterwards claiming under them and litigating under the same title.
It bars fresh litigation at the outset. Estoppel by representation is a rule of evidence based on the
principle that a man, who by his acts or statements has induced another to believe a thing to be
true, should not afterwards be heard to deny the truth of that thing to the prejudice of the other
who acted upon the belief so induced.

Res judicata ousts the jurisdiction of the Court, while estoppel merely shuts the mouth of a party.

Estoppel does not forces and effect of judgment depend on (1) nature of proceedings (2) forum

on which it was pronounced mean anything more than that a person shall not be allowed to say
one thing at one time and the opposite of it at another time while res judicata means nothing
more than that a person shall not be heard to say the same thing twice over.
Estoppel by res judicata extends also to matters of admission fundamental to the decision. A

judgment by consent or default is as effective an estoppel between the parties as a judgment

whereby the Court exercises its mind on a contested case.

Situations where estoppel by record or quasi record arises are as follows:

 1. Where the dispute between the parties on the facts have been decided upon by the
tribunal which was entitled to take decision in the particular case, and when the same
dispute arises again in the matter subsequent to the first one, between the same parties;
2. Where the issue raised between the parties which has been resolved by the judiciary,
incidently comes again into question in the subsequent proceedings between the same
party.
3. Where an issue raised on the facts, affecting the status of the person or thing, has been
willing determined in a manner that in the final decision it be included as a substantive
part of the judgment in rem  of the tribunal that has been setup to decide the particular
case. This should take place when the same issue comes directly in question in
subsequent civil proceedings between any party whatever. 

II. Estoppel by deed

The rule of estoppel binds the parties to the instrument and those claiming through them by deed.

An estoppel by deed is a preclusion against the competent parties to a valid sealed contract and
their privies, to deny its force and effect by any evidence of inferior solemnity. The tendency in
modern times is, to treat estoppel by deed as resting upon contract and as merely a form of
estoppel by representation.
The doctrine of estoppel by deed in its technical sense cannot be said to exist in India. In Indian

law, a representation contained in a document of however formal a character, being merely an

admission, is not conclusive, and does not operate as an estoppel, unless the party to whom the

representation was made has acted upon it and thus altered his position. A representation

contained in a formal deed is not clothed with any special sanctity in this country, except that in

certain cases it excludes oral evidence to the contrary.

III. Estoppel by Matters in paiis

"Estoppel by matters in Paiis" (also, pais) is defined by Blackstone as an "assurance transacted

between two or more private persons in pais, in the country, that, is, upon the very spot to be
transferred".Estoppel in paiis is said to arise, firstly, from agreement or- contract; secondly
independently of contract, from act or conduct of misrepresentation which has a change of
position in accordance with the real or apparent intentions of the party against whom the estoppel
is alleged.
The elucidated meaning of ‘Estoppel by Pias’ is ‘Estoppel in the Country’ or ‘Estoppel before

the public’. The Act deals with the subject of in pais in sections 115-117. The rules contained in
sections 116 and 117 are instances of the estoppel by contract. Other cases which have been

included under that designation will be found to fall within the purview of section 115, which,

however, primarily appears to refer to what is known as estoppel by representation.

Estoppel by conduct means when a person through agreement, misrepresentation or negligence

makes the other person believe in certain things upon which the other person had taken some
action causing a change in their current situation, then the first person cannot deny the veracity
of the statements given by him in the latter stages. 

In the case of Sardar Chand Singh v. Commissioner; Burdwan Division, [1] Chang Singh, the
Managing Director of Messrs., was denied any revolver license as he was accused in a gruesome
murder case and other cases. When the District Magistrate issued an order that he could not hold
any revolver license on the grounds of public order and safety, Chand made no appeal. This
planted a reasonable belief that he has consented to it. Later on when makes an application to the
District Magistrate to reconsider his case, it was denied following the doctrine of ‘Estoppel by
Conduct’.

IV.Estoppel by election

According to the doctrine of estoppel by election the person receiving the gift or claiming the
right can enjoy one of them and not both of them. So Meena cannot now go back upon it and
take the other option. 

In the case of Revision v. Lekshmy Sukesini Devi,[2] the court clearly stated that: Parties should
not take inconsistent pleas as it makes the conduct far from satisfactory. And also that parties
should not take inconsistent stands and lengthen the proceedings unnecessarily. 
In another case, the petitioner was given a land on licence and not on interest. In the terms and
conditions of the contract it was stated that in case a dispute arises, the decision of the chairman
would be the final one. The land was given to the petitioner to build an amusement park on it.
While building the park it was found that the necessary actions have not been taken for the
establishment of the park and as a result half of the land remained undeveloped, which went on
to violate the conditions of the contract. In the suit filed, the court said that the doctrine of
estoppel cannot be pleaded in the given circumstances. 

V.Equitable estoppel

When a person tries to take a legal action that would conflict with his previously given
statements, claims or acts, this legal principle would prohibit him from doing so. So, the plaintiff
would be stopped from bringing a suit against the defendant who acted pursuant to the
commands of the plaintiff. 

The modern law of estoppel owes immensely to the doctrine of equity being founded on the

incidents of contracts or relations analogous to contracts coupled with the representations of

parties by a declaration, act, or omission. Estoppels that are not provided by statute law may, in
this country, be termed equitable estoppels.
A man may be estopped not only from giving particular evidence, but from doing acts, or relying

upon any particular arguments or contention which the rules of equity conscience prevent his
using as against his opponent.
This doctrine also applies to a case where a person is given an unequivocal assurance and On the

faith thereof, he acts detrimental to his interest and he then suffers an irretrievable injury in that

pursuit. In such a case having made a promise, the maker thereof is precluded to resile therefrom.
However it has been held that section 115 is not exhaustive and there may be rules of estoppel

which may be applicable in India other than what is contained in that section.

VI.Estoppel by negligence
This principle allows one party to claim a right over the property of another party who might not
be having the possession of it. This reflects that the person being estopped owes a duty to the
other person whom he had led into wrong belief. 

In the case of Mercantile Bank of India v/s The Central Bank of India Limited [3] a firm of
merchants committed a series of fraud and until it came to the notice of the authorities, enjoyed
high repute in the state of Madras. This firm was known for groundnuts-merchant and exporters.
Both the plaintiff and defendant financed the consignments of ground-nuts purchased and each
received a ‘railway receipt’ in respect of their consignment. 

The merchants needed a loan so what they did was, at first pledged the railway receipt from the
Central Bank to obtain a loan and then again fraudulently pledged it to the Mercantile Bank also.
The plaintiff, the Central Bank had filed a suit for conversion of the goods against Mercantile
Bank. It was held that there was no negligence as Central Bank didn’t owe a duty to the
Mercantile Bank and so Central Bank was not estopped from having a prior title as ‘pledgees’.

VII. Proprietary Estoppel

A legal precedent that will prevent a party from denying the right that another party has in the
first party’s property. The second party will have had costs in relation to the first party’s
property.
Until 1986 the doctrine of proprietary estoppel was used as a way to bar litigants from asserting

their strict proprietary rights. The doctrine had not been used to give effect to promises to leave
property to someone in the future. It has developed into one of equity’s sharpest instruments in
its intervention in the common law and statutory regulation of land and the distribution of assets
on death.
In Thorner v. Major [13] it was laid down that in order to claim a right under proprietary
estoppel these things have to be proved:

 That representation has been made.

 That the party believed it to be true and acted upon it.
 That the party suffered a loss as a result of such representation.
In James v. James [14] Allen and Sandra had two daughters and one son. The son worked for the
major part of his life with his father eventually becoming a partner. When making the will, Allen
gave some land to one of his daughters which created a dispute in the family leading to the
dissolution of the partnership. Later Allen distributed his property amongst the three ladies of his
house, cutting down the name of his son. Son brought a case of proprietary estoppel against the
women and also challenged the validity of Allen’s will. It was held that nothing has been shown
or said with clarity that Aleen would transfer his entire will to him. 

VIII. Promissory Estoppel

The legal enforcement of a promise. Made by words or conduct to the promisee without the
consideration of the detriment it may cause.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not fall within the scope of section 115 as the section

talks about representations made as to existing facts whereas promissory estoppel deals with
future promises.

IX.Estoppel on a Point of law

The Doctrine of estoppel does not apply to statutes but only to the facts. Estoppel, if applied to
the law would go against public policy and general welfare of the society. The principle of

In Jatindra Prasad Das v. State of Orissa & Ors. [5] the High Court of Orissa laid down that
estoppel cannot arise against statutes and statutory provisions. It was further said that statutory
provisions cannot be disregarded in any case, not even on the grounds of precedent or previous
administrative decision. 

In the case of Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors.[6], pavement
dwellers who migrated to India, because of proximity to their place of work started living on the
pavements in Bombay. Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) initially allowed them to stay as
they constituted the major part of the population of Bombay.Later on when the pavement
dwellers were evacuated, Olga Tellis, a journalist raised questions against this action. It was
upheld that no estoppel can arise against the Constitution of India or against the fundamental
right, i.e. the right to life and livelihood in this case. 
  Estoppel and tax laws

In I.T. Commissioner v. Firm Muar [7] the court upheld that doctrine of estoppel would not hold
in the case where a non-taxable income under Income-Tax Act, has been taxed. Also once it has
been said that a tax would be collected then one cannot give up on it. Further, stating that the tax
would not be collected would not bind the state government from collecting it, as decided
in Mathura Prasad v. State of Punjab [8].

 Unambiguous laws cannot be dodged

In Sales Tax Officer v. Kanhaiya Lal  it was formulated that the doctrine of estoppel would not
arise in cases where the law clearly, without any ambiguity, states that the plaintiff should be
given relief. When any law is absolute and has no exception clauses, than anybody acting against
it would be acting beyond powers which would be void and the party getting affected by it can
file suit claiming estoppel against it. Whereas if any exemption clause exists in the law then
relaxation can be given based upon it. The party would not be said to be acting ultra vires and
estoppel can be claimed as mentioned in the judgement of Delhi university v. Ashok
Kumar  [10].

Categories under which the doctrine of estoppel cannot be applied against the state:

 By entering into bilateral agreement parties can contract himself out of the statutory
provisions,
 There must exist some provision in the statute which prevents the parties from
entering into such types agreements which the parties would have entered into,
 The provision should be such that it satisfies the interest of the public at large,
 The provisions should not be such that only a particular category of people can avail
its benefits, and,
 Merging of the agreement between the parties into a court’s order where the parties
have been discouraged from performing its obligation imposed on them by law,
because of certain actions by the parties.
In Jai Jai Ram v. Srimati Laxhmi Devi [11] the court gave a verdict that what appears to be a
law is actually a law or not is dependent on the truth of the facts and on the situation of the
parties which keeps on changing. Whether what impersonates a law is really a law or not has to
be decided by the courts.

In National Oxygen Ltd., Madras v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board [12] relying on the Schedule
mentioned in the Act a new industry was given concession on tax for the next five years from the
days of its commencement. The state Government of Madras under a section of the Act had the
power to bring amendments to the schedules of the Act. Pursuant to this, the State government
brought an amendment to the above-mentioned schedule and made it a subject to certain
conditions. This was done before the completion of 5 years of that industry. The industry in his
suit pleaded estoppel to which the court said that no estoppel would arise against the
government. 

X Estoppel by Convention

In the case of the Republic of India v. India Steam Ship Company Limited,  [16] it was observed
that estoppel by convention arises when parties to a transaction assume the facts or the law. This
assumption might be made by both the parties or either of the parties. Under this principle,
parties to an agreement could not deny to the assumed facts, because if the party or parties are
allowed to go back on their assumptions, it would be unfair and lead to injustice. 

In a meeting between the landlord and the lesses, it was decided that the landlord would send
demands at the end of the year and the receipt would be given to any one of the lessees.
However, certification was not made a requirement for the recovery of the service charged under
the agreement. The doctrine of estoppel by convention would apply whereby the landlord could
recover the service charges which could not be challenged by the lessee as there was no
certification. This was decided in the case of Clacy & Nunn v. Sanchez & Others. [17]

XI Contractual Estoppel
This principle would apply even when the original statement made by the parties is not
true.In Peekay Intermark Ltd. v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. [18] it was laid
down that when the parties to the contract gives consent to a fact, neither of them can deny the
existence of such facts to which they have agreed, especially when considering those aspects of
their relationship towards which the agreement had been directed. The contract would itself give
rise to contractual estoppel.

DOCTRINE OF ESTOPLLE UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT:

The principle of estoppel embodies in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is
commonly known as a rule of evidence. The Section reads as under:

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 on such belief, neither he nor his
representatives shall be allowed in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his
representative, to deny the truth of that thing.

To invoke the principle of estoppel enshrined in the Section, the following three conditions are
necessarily be satisfied:
(I).there must be a declaration, act or omission on the part of a person;
(ii).by the said declaration, etc., that person must have intentionally caused or permitted another
person to believe a thing to be true; and
(iii).he must have intentionally caused or permitted the said another person, to act upon such
belief.
Section 115 explains that a party is precluded from denying the existence of some state of facts
which he had previously asserted and on which the other party has relied or is entitled to rely on.
That is, a man should keep his words, all the more so when the promise is made with the
intention that the other party should act upon it.

The court in Pickard v. Sears [30] said that estoppel is where:

 One party by his words or actions makes a representation

  The other party believing in his words acts on that
 Or alters his position

The main requirement of estoppel is to bring the person into action based on the representations
made to him. It is not important that the person making the representation has the knowledge or
motive behind the representation being made. It is also not necessary that the representation
being made is fraudulent in nature or that it has been made under a mistake or misapprehension.
In order to apply this doctrine, it has to be ensured that the representation made should be based
upon the existing facts and must not be a representation relating to a future promise. 

In Delhi University v. Ashok Kumar5, the respondent, a student after passing the Secondary
School Certificate Examination of the Gujarat Board was admitted provisionally in the B.A. I
year course in the Delhi University. After over a year, the University informed him that he was
ineligible to join the course because the Gujarat Board Examination had been recognized by the
appellate University as equivalent to Matric Examination while the qualification to join B.A. I
year Course was passing the Higher Secondary Examination. However, the Statute had
authorized the Academic Council of the University to grant exemption from the admission
requirements. The High Court of accepted the plea of the estoppel raised by the student
against the University. The Court stated that estoppel was within the meaning of Section 115 of
the Evidence Act, 1872, might arise from the silence as well as words, the Court held “inaction
of the University for over a year amounted to a representation by it that it had approved his
admission” and. therefore the University would now be estopped from doing that

 In Shri Krishna v. Kurukshetra University6, the Apex Court had ruled that the University could
not cancel the candidature of the appellant-student for the not complying with the attendance
requirement, as the respondents failed to tale the adequate care to scrutinize his examination
from at the relevant time to ascertain whether the candidate fulfilled the necessary conditions.

The law for estoppel or the rule of exclusion of certain evidence under certain circumstances,

like between tenant and landlord, licensee of person in possession and licensor (s. 116), or as

5
AIR 1968 Del. 131
6
AIR 1976 SC 376
between acceptor and drawer of a bill of exchange, as between Bailee and bailor and licensor and
license (s. 117). Estoppel is a procedure of proof.

Section 116 reads - Estoppel of tenant; 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 license of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny
that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such license was given.
The doctrine is generally recognized that a tenant is estopped, while the tenancy continues, to
deny the title of his landlord.

Scope of section 116

It is concerned with those estoppels which occurs between:

 Tenant and his landlord

 Licensor and licensee

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 may deny to
things or course of action by the landlord which is against to what was mentioned in the
agreement. A tenant can in no case claim that the landlord has no title over the property.  

In the following situations, the landlord can plead estoppel:

 When the tenancy itself stands disputed then the tenant can challenge the landlord’s
title on the property. The tenant would not be estopped from doing so.
 In cases where the tenancy has been moved by fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or
mistake.
The tenant can not deny the title to the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. However,
tenants can exercise certain powers like:

 He would not be estopped from claiming that on the death of the landlord the property
would be transferred or the title would be delegated to the tenant and not to some third
party. 
 He can prove that till the day before signing the lease, the landlord had no title over it.
 The tenant can prove that during the tenancy period the landlord lost his title over the
property either through his acts or because he was barred by the law. [61]

In E. Parashuram v. V. Doraiswamy [59], the Bangalore Mahanagar Palike owned land which

was leased to Mr. Dhanpal for the period of next 10 years. It was found that Mr. Dhanpal had
decreed the land to Mr. Doraiswamy. A decree was passed in the name of Mr. Dhanpal whereby
the vendors were directed to execute the reconveyance of deed in Dhanpal’s favour. Thereafter,
pursuant to the orders, all the documents were to be kept in Dhanpal’s possession. Sooner it was
found that the vendors were trying to claim ownership over the property. This was brought to the
notice of the assignee, Mr. Doraiswamy, who filed a suit of eviction in court.In the second
instance regarding the purchasing of land by Mr. Doraiswamy, it was found that at the initial
stage, the signature of Mr. Doraiswamy was also taken along with Mr. Dhanpal and when this
mistake was rectified by the corporation by deleting the signature of Mr. Doraiswamy, he
challenged it. The court in the first instance upheld that the landlord could not be denied the title
to the land even though certain disputes still remain unresolved with the corporation. In the
second instance, the court said that no jural relationship existed and thus exceptions under
Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be pleaded. 

In  licensor- licensee relationship the same rule operates like that in the landlord-
tenant relationship. When a licensee obtains the possession through licence cannot deny the title
to the licensor unless the relationship ceases to exist. 

Estoppel in mortgagor- mortgagee relationship

When upon the contract of mortgage, a property has been mortgaged by one person to another
and the person to whom it has been mortgaged, i.e. the mortgagee, has taken possession, then the
parties to the contract cannot deny the right of each other under the contract as proposed
in Arjun Singh v. Mahasaband [62].

In a situation where the mortgage is about the end and payment has to be made by the
mortgagee, in that period if the mortgagee claims that the mortgagor seems to have no interest in
the property, he would be estopped from doing so. The rule under mortgagor-mortgagee
relationship gives rise to the doctrine of estoppel only when the claims under the suit filed is
based on the contract of mortgage and in cases of repudiation of the mortgage. 

Section 117 - Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, Bailee or licensee:

The section states that the acceptor of the bills of exchange cannot deny the person who is
supposed to draw the bills, from drawing it or endorsing it. Also no bailee or licensee can deny
the fact that at the time when the bailment and license began, the bailor and the licensor had the
authority to make bailment or to give license. 

1. The person accepting the bills of exchange can deny that the bills of exchange were
really drawn by the very person who showed to have drawn it. 
2. If the bailor mistakenly delivers the goods to some third party instead of the bailee, he
can prove that a third party has the right over the goods bailed against the bailor.

As per the stand taken by Supreme Court in the case of Mohan v. State, the rule of issue estoppel
does not prohibit that evidence given at one trial against the accused cannot be given in another
trial for another offence.

ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA

Sometimes, the doctrine of "res judicata" is considered as a branch of law of estoppel. There is
distinction between doctrine of "res judicata" principle of 'issue estoppel' and 'rule estoppel'
under section 115 Of the Evidence Act. Doctrine Of res judicata creates legal embargo on hands
of the court to a judicial determination of deciding the same question over again even though
earlier determination may be demonstratedly erroneous. When the proceedings between the same
parties have attained finality, they are bound by the judgment and cannot be permitted to re-
agitate the same lis. The determination of the issue in the same set of facts in the previous lis
between the parties would give rise to an issue of estoppel. It operates in any subsequent
proceedings between the same parties.
The doctrine of res judicata is based on rule of procedure. However, doctrine of mere estoppel
under section 115 Of the Evidence Act, there is embargo on the party to plead or prove a
particular facts whereas in case of res judicata, the prohibition is operative against the court to
deal with the same kind of issue again and again.

ESTOPPEL AND WAIVER

A waiver is the deliberate or voluntary relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or

privilege. For example, an insurance company in its policy has stated that the policy would stand
cancelled in case of non-payment in 30 days after the notice for the same has been given. Mr. X
failed on payment and requested the company to consider his application soliciting an extension
of one week. The company considers Mr. X’s application and by doing so has waived the
original deadline for payment.

The difference between estoppel and waiver was explained by the Supreme Court in the case
of Provash Chandra Dalui and Ors. v. Biswanath Banerjee and Ors. [27]. The court held that the
most important element in case of waiver is that there must be intentional relinquishment of a
known right and should be willing done by the party. Where waiver asks for an involvement of
intention by the party to surrender a right, in the doctrine of estoppel the element of intention is
irrelevant. And what becomes important in estoppel is that the party must suffer loss as a result
of the false representation made to him. In case of estoppel it is not required that the part give up
on the right, the doctrine of estoppel would anyway arise. 

The Doctrine of estoppel prevents a person from denying his previous statement made in a court
of law as it could cause injury or loss to the other party. 
 ESTOPPEL AND ADMISSION
Though in both admissions and estoppels there are statements, an admission does not ripen into

an estoppel unless the person to whom the representation is made believes it and acts upon such

belief, whereas in the case of mere admission evidence can be given to show that the admission
was wrongly made.
Admission made in earlier suit as to the nature of property if proved valid in subsequent

proceedings are binding as estoppel.

ESTOPPEL AGAINST, OR IN FAVOR OF THE STATE

The State is entitled, along with the subjects, to a plea of estoppel. But the neglect or omissions

of public officers as to their public duties will not work as an estoppel against the State. A

mistaken interpretation made by Government officers of a grant by the State and their

consequent mistaken acts are not binding on the State and would not create an estoppel as against

the State. Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to compel the Government or even a private

party to do an act prohibited by law.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel was applied by the Supreme Court to give relief to the

employees to whom the State Government had held out certain promises as inducement to move
into a newly created department. It was held that the employees having acted upon the
-representations- could not be denied the rights and benefits promised to them by the State
Government
The State cannot be prevented from exercising its functions under the law must be deemed to be

overruled by the Supreme Court in three member judgment in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips.

Even innocent or mistaken representation may operate as an estoppel against the party making

the representation The State is not bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel for acts of its

subordinates done in violation of its direction on administrative instructions.

CONCLUSION

Estoppel has been defined in a general way as the "preclusion of a person to assert a fact which
has been admitted or determined under circumstances of solemnity, such as by matter of record
or by deed, or which he has, by an act in pais, induced another to believe and act upon to his
prejudice." As appears from this definition, estoppels are of three general classes: (1) estoppels
by record; (2) estoppels by deed; (3) estoppels in pais, or, as they are sometimes called, equitable
estoppel. The latter, and, indeed, all of these are sometimes treated under the head of conclusive'
admissions. Estoppel of the first and second classes have been sufficiently treated elsewhere, and
this chapter will be confined to the subject of estoppel in pais.
Estoppels have also been likened to solemn admissions and conclusive evidence. Formal
admissions, conclusive evidence and estoppels have the common feature of affecting the
admissibility, of evidence.
In English law, estoppel by representation of fact is a term coined by Spencer Bower.
The law relating to estoppel, as stated above, appears to be too widely stated in the following

observation of the Supreme Court of India:

“It is doubted whether the Court while determining whether the conduct of a particular person
amounts to an "estoppels”, could travel beyond the provisions of s. 115 of The Indian Evidence
Act and rely upon what is sometimes called 'equitable estoppel'. But assuming that the law as
stated by the Calcutta High Court, is correct, the point to be noted is that it was a case between
private parties.”
This species of estoppel is also referred to as "common law estoppel by representation" in
Halsbury's Laws of England, vol 16(2), 2003 reissue.
Spencer Bower defines estoppel by representation of fact as follows:

“Where one person (‘the representor’) has made a representation of fact to another person (‘the
representee’) in words or by acts or conduct, or (being under a duty to the representee to speak
or act) by silence or inaction, with the intention (actual or presumptive) and with the result of
inducing the representee on the faith of such representation to alter his position to his detriment,
the representor, in any litigation which may afterwards take place between him and the
representee, is estopped, as against the representee, from making, or attempting to establish by
evidence, any averment substantially at variance with his former representation, if the
representee at the proper time, and in proper manner, objects thereto.”
A second definition comes from Sean Wilken and Theresa Villiers:

“An estoppel by representation [of fact] will arise between A and B if the following elements are
made
out. First, A makes a false representation of fact to B or to a group of which B was a member. [It
is not necessary to demonstrate A knew that the representation was untrue.] Second, in making
the representation, A intended or [in the alternatively,] knew that it was likely to be acted upon.
Third, B, believing the representation, acts to its detriment in reliance on the representation. [It
must have been reasonable to rely on the representation.] Fourth, A subsequently seeks to deny
the truth of the representation. Fifth, no defence to the estoppel can be raised by A.
'Estoppels' in the sense in which the term is used in English legal phraseology, are matter of
infinite variety, and are by no means confined to subjects which are dealt with in Chapter VIII of
The Indian Evidence Act. A man may be estoppled not only from giving particular evidence, but
from doing acts, or relying upon any particular arguments oil contention which the rules of
equity and good conscience prevent him from using as against his opponent.
A representation can be made by words or conduct. Although the representation must be clear
and unambiguous, a representation can be inferred from silence where there is a duty to speak or
from negligence where a duty of care has arisen. Under English law, estoppel by representation
of fact usually acts as a defense, though it may act in support of a cause of action or
counterclaim.
Estoppel was once regarded as a rule or branch of the law of evidence, but the better opinion, and

that which now prevails, is that it is more properly a branch of the substantive law.898 Although
in some respects it might be regarded as within the field of procedure. In any event, however, it

is customary to treat the subject to some extent in works on evidence, and it is clearly within the

scope of our plan to treat it so far as questions of evidence are concerned when estoppel is

involved as a particular issue in a case.