Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act: Estoppel under Indian Evidence Act | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Estoppel in Indian Evidence Act

• Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines estoppel as the principle that prohibits a person from denying or contradicting a statement that they previously made and that another person relied upon to their detriment. In simpler terms, if someone leads another to believe something is true and that person acts based on that belief, the first person cannot later deny the truth of that statement in a legal proceeding.
• For instance, if A falsely convinces B that certain land belongs to A, which leads B to buy and pay for it, A cannot later claim that he did not own the land at the time of the sale. This principle of estoppel prevents A from going back on his initial representation.
• Similarly, in the case of Shammim Beg v. Najmunnissa Begum, a husband's acceptance of paternity regarding a child born to his wife before their marriage bound him to that statement, preventing him from challenging the child's legitimacy later.
• Estoppel serves to uphold the reliability and consistency of statements made in legal contexts, ensuring that individuals are held accountable for the consequences of their assertions.

Understanding Estoppel in the Indian Evidence Act

Estoppel, as defined in the Indian Evidence Act, encompasses several key elements that are crucial to its application. Let's break down these essential components:

• A Person's Misrepresentation: A person engages in misrepresentation through their actions, omissions, or declarations.
• Misrepresentation of a Fact: This misrepresentation specifically pertains to the existence of a certain fact.
• Intentional Misrepresentation: The misrepresentation is deliberately made to convince another person of something.
• Belief in the Misrepresentation: The other party believes the misrepresented information to be true.
• Action Based on Misrepresentation: As a result of believing the misrepresentation, the other person takes some action.
• Injury Due to the Action: The action taken based on the misrepresentation leads to harm or injury to the other person.
• Lack of Awareness: The person who acted upon the misrepresentation is unaware of the actual situation.

These elements are fundamental to understanding how estoppel functions within the framework of the Indian Evidence Act. Let's illustrate this with an example:

Imagine a scenario where Person A falsely represents that a piece of land belongs to them. Person B, relying on this misrepresentation, purchases the land from Person A. Subsequently, it is revealed that the land did not belong to Person A, causing financial loss to Person B due to their reliance on the false information.

In this example, all the essential elements of estoppel are present: misrepresentation, belief in the misrepresentation, action based on the misrepresentation, resulting injury, and lack of awareness regarding the true ownership of the land.

Conditions for Doctrine of Estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• The doctrine of estoppel necessitates certain conditions to be fulfilled for its application:
• The representation must be made by one individual to another.
• The representation should pertain to facts, not interpretations of the law.
• The representation must concern an existing fact, not a future occurrence.
• The representation needs to be conveyed in a way that convinces the other party of its truth.
• The individual receiving the representation must act based on that belief.
• The individual who would be on the receiving end of the representation must suffer a loss due to that representation.

Let's break down these conditions further:

Representation by One Person to Another

• For estoppel to be applicable, there must be a communication of information from one party to another.
• Example: A seller informing a buyer that a product is brand new when it is actually second-hand.

Representation of Facts, Not Law

• The information provided should relate to factual circumstances, not legal interpretations.
• Example: A landlord stating that a property has no history of flooding when it has previously been flooded.

Relating to an Existing Fact

• The representation should concern a fact that presently exists, not a future possibility.
• Example: A contractor affirming that a building is up to code when it violates safety regulations.

Creating a Belief in Truth

• The representation should be made in a manner that convinces the other party of its accuracy.
• Example: An insurance agent assuring a client that a policy covers all damages when it actually has significant exclusions.

Action Based on Belief

• The individual receiving the representation must take action relying on the information provided.
• Example: An investor purchasing stocks based on misleading financial information provided by a broker.

Resulting in Loss

• The individual to whom the representation is made should suffer a detriment due to relying on that information.
• Example: A student enrolling in a course based on false promises regarding job placement, leading to career setbacks.

Types of Estoppel in Indian Evidence Act

• Estoppel by Record: This type of estoppel is established by the final decision of a competent court. Once a court reaches a conclusive decision on a matter, the parties involved, along with their representatives, executors, administrators, etc., are legally bound by that decision. They are prevented from initiating another lawsuit on the same subject or disputing the matter again. Essentially, it functions similarly to res judicata.
• Estoppel by Deed: In this form of estoppel, when a person is bound to another based on a recorded document concerning certain facts, neither that person nor anyone claiming through them can deny the contents of that document.
• Estoppel by Conduct: This type of estoppel arises from the actions, conduct, or misrepresentation of a party. If a person leads another to believe something through their words or actions, and the other person acts on that belief, resulting in a change in their circumstances, the first person is prohibited from contradicting the truthfulness of their earlier statements. This type of estoppel is of a general nature.
• Equitable Estoppel: These estoppels, not explicitly defined by any statute, are termed equitable estoppels. Sections 41 and 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provide notable examples of equitable estoppels.
• Promissory Estoppel: Originating as an exception to the consideration requirement in contract law, promissory estoppel comes into play when one person promises another a benefit or relief, leading the other individual to alter their position based on that promise. In such cases, the promisor is prevented from claiming that the promise lacked consideration.

Exceptions to Estoppel under the Indian Evidence Act

• When both parties are aware of the truthfulness of a matter, estoppel does not apply in such cases.
• Estoppel cannot be invoked against statutes. It must not go against statutory provisions or conditions, including regulations.
• It is not applicable to ultra-vires orders and decisions, questions of law, or sovereign acts of the government.

Explanation:

• Mutual Knowledge Exception: Estoppel does not come into play when both parties are fully aware of the truth of a situation. For instance, if two individuals knowingly agree on a false statement, estoppel cannot be used to assert otherwise.
• Statutory Limitation: Estoppel cannot be used in contradiction to statutes. This means that if a legal statute clearly dictates a certain provision, estoppel cannot be used to circumvent or nullify that provision.
• Scope Exclusion: Estoppel does not extend to certain specific scenarios, such as ultra-vires orders and decisions made beyond the legal authority, questions of law, or actions undertaken by the government in its sovereign capacity.

Provisions and Case Laws Related to Estoppel under Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act

• Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from contradicting or denying what they have previously stated in court.
• According to the ruling in Pickard v. Sears, estoppel occurs when:
• 
  
  • One party makes a representation through words or actions.
  • The other party believes in those words or actions and acts based on them or changes their position.
  • The party who made the initial representation cannot later deny what they said.
• In situations involving estoppel, the change in position must be significant enough that it would be unjust or unfair to allow the party to go back on their initial statement, as illustrated in the case of Pratima Chowdhury v. Kalpana Mukherjee.

Necessary Elements of Representation under Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act

• Representation Methods:
  • By words
  • Through conduct, which includes negligence
• Case Example - Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut:
  • The plaintiff bought an N.S.C. by paying only a part of the total amount.
  • The defendant closed the plaintiff's account and refunded the amount without interest, citing a breach of rules.
  • The court rejected the estoppel claim, noting that no misrepresentation occurred as the plaintiff purchased the N.S.C. knowingly.

Case Laws Related to Doctrine of Estoppel

• Life Insurance Corporation v. O.P. Bhalla and Ors: In this case, the insured individual failed to make a payment for the second installment of the policy, leading to its lapse. Despite this, the corporation accepted subsequent payments, including the overdue second installment with interest. When the assured passed away, the nominee sought the insured amount. However, it was revealed that the insured had undergone a significant operation without informing the insurer. The court ruled that the insured could not claim estoppel due to withholding crucial information, as disclosing it could have impacted the contract terms.
• Sanatan Gauda v. Bharampur University: This case involves a student who had completed two years at a law college but faced objections from the university when it came to releasing his final year results. Despite submitting all necessary documents during admission and receiving an examination card, the university refused to publish his results. The court intervened, stating that the university was estopped from withholding the student's results.
• Kumar Nilofar Insaf (Dr.) v. State of Madhya Pradesh: When a medical college student contested the release of a merit list for the M.D. course after consenting to a prior house-job merit list, the court invoked estoppel against the student. This decision was based on the student's earlier consent to the initial merit list.
• Dataram S. Victore v. Tukaram S. Victore: In this instance, a tenant had clearly stated in a tenancy agreement form that he would be residing with his brother and sister-in-law. Despite this information being provided and accepted, the landlord attempted to terminate the tenancy. The court ruled in favor of the tenant, dismissing the eviction order and estopping the landlord from ending the lease based on the mentioned grounds.

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Tenants or those claiming through tenancy cannot deny the landlord's title during the tenancy period.
• If a person enters a property through a license, they cannot deny the licensor's title at the time of granting the license.

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, addresses the issue of denying the landlord's title by tenants or those deriving their rights through a tenancy agreement. It stipulates that while the tenancy is ongoing, the tenant or anyone claiming through the tenancy cannot dispute the fact that the landlord originally held the title to the property at the beginning of the tenancy.

Additionally, the section extends this principle to cases where a person enters an immovable property through a license. In such instances, the individual who obtained the license cannot contest the fact that the licensor, i.e., the person who granted the license and was in possession of the property, had the rightful title when the license was issued.

Let's explore these concepts further with some examples:

• Tenancy Scenario: Imagine a situation where a tenant occupies a house under a rental agreement. According to Section 116, during the tenancy period, the tenant cannot claim that the landlord did not have the title to the property when the tenancy began.
• License Scenario: Consider a scenario where an individual is granted a license to use a piece of land by the owner. As per Section 116, the licensee cannot later deny that the licensor had the rightful title to the land at the time the license was granted.

Scope of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the concept of estoppel, focusing on specific relationships:
• It applies to relationships between a tenant and their landlord, as well as between a licensor and licensee.
• One key aspect is that it prevents a tenant from denying the title of their landlord.

Tenant and Landlord Relationship

• When a tenant agrees to rent a property from a landlord, takes possession, and occupies the premises, they cannot later deny the landlord's rights as mentioned in the agreement.
• For example, if a tenant agreed to pay rent for a year and later claims they do not have to, Section 116 prevents them from going back on their initial agreement.

Licensor and Licensee Relationship

• This part applies to situations where a licensor grants a licensee the right to use a property or asset.
• Once such a license is granted, the licensee cannot dispute the licensor's authority over the asset in question.

Denial of Landlord's Title

• A crucial aspect of Section 116 is that a tenant is legally prohibited from claiming that their landlord has no rightful title to the property being rented.
• For instance, if a tenant attempts to argue in court that the landlord does not own the property they are renting, Section 116 would prevent such denial based on the established legal relationship.

By understanding and applying Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, individuals involved in landlord-tenant and licensor-licensee relationships can navigate their rights and obligations more effectively, ensuring legal clarity and fairness in property dealings.

Case Laws

• Udai Pratap v. Krishna Pradhan: This case established that tenancy continues as long as the tenant possesses the property and benefits from it. It highlighted that mere possession and enjoyment of benefits constitute tenancy.
• Moti Lal v. Yar Md: In this case, it was clarified that a tenant cannot deny the landlord's interest in the property merely because the landlord initiates legal action for non-payment of rent or eviction. The tenant must vacate the property before questioning the landlord's title.
• Sri S.K. Sharma v. Mahesh Kumar Verma: The case involved an officer who received a premise from the railway company upon a promotion. It emphasized that the officer must vacate the premises post-retirement, regardless of the ownership status of the land. This case highlights the obligation of the officer to vacate the premises upon retirement.

Section 117 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Acceptor of bills of exchange cannot deny drawer from drawing or endorsing them.
• Bailee or licensee cannot deny bailment or license validity at the beginning.
• Accepter of bills can dispute the actual drawer's identity.
• If bailor mistakenly delivers goods to a third party instead of bailee, third party's rights can be proven against bailor.

Section 117 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stipulates certain crucial points regarding bills of exchange, bailment, and licenses. Let's delve deeper into these concepts:

Acceptance of Bills of Exchange

• The individual accepting bills of exchange is obligated to allow the drawer to draw or endorse them.
• For instance, if A accepts a bill of exchange from B, A cannot later deny B the right to draw or endorse the bill.

Bailment and License Validity

• In the context of bailment and licenses, it is essential that the bailee or licensee does not dispute the validity of the bailment or license at its inception.
• For example, if X entrusts goods to Y as a bailee, Y cannot later claim that X did not have the authority to make the bailment.

Disputing Drawer's Identity

• The acceptor of bills of exchange can challenge the authenticity of the drawer's identity.
• Suppose C accepts a bill of exchange purportedly drawn by D. C reserves the right to contest whether D is indeed the true drawer.

Delivery of Goods in Bailment

• If a bailor mistakenly delivers goods to a third party instead of the designated bailee, a claim can be made against the bailor by the third party.
• For instance, if goods meant for E are mistakenly handed over to F by the bailor, F can establish his rights over the goods against the bailor.

Scope

• The section defines the scenario where the acceptor of a bill of exchange cannot refute the authority of the drawer to draw or endorse the bill but can challenge the actual origin of the bill.
• It highlights that a bailee or licensor is bound by the acknowledgment that the bailor or licensor initially possessed the authority at the commencement of the bailment or grant. However, a bailee can demonstrate that a third party, not the bailor, had the right against the bailee.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, the Doctrine of Estoppel stands as a crucial legal principle designed to protect individuals from fraud or misrepresentation. Instances where innocent individuals fall victim to false representations are addressed by this doctrine, preventing wrongful conduct and holding accountable those responsible for inducing others to act based on misleading information.
• The legal framework of estoppel serves as a deterrent, discouraging individuals from making false representations that could lead others to incur losses. By promoting accountability and discouraging deceptive practices, the doctrine contributes to the fairness and integrity of legal proceedings.