ESTOPPEL

Estoppel: Doctrine of Estoppel is that provision which prohibits a person from giving false evidence by preventing them from making contradicting
statements in a Court of Law. The objective of this doctrine is to avert the commission of fraud by one person against another person. This doctrine
holds a person accountable for false representations made by him, either through his words or through his conduct.

Section 115 Estoppel : This section incorporates the meaning of estoppel as when one person either by his act or omission, or by declaration, has made
another person believe something to be true and persuaded that person to act upon it, then in no case can he or his representative deny the truth of that
thing later in the suit or in the proceedings. In simple words, estoppel means one cannot contradict, deny or declare to be false the previous statement
made by him in the Court.

Example: Simran, a leading entrepreneur, wants to buy a car. Raj is her good friend who owns a classic car of great worth. When Simran contacts Raj
to help her in purchasing a car, he says that she can buy his car which he has been planning to sell for some time now. Simran buys his car. Later on, the
car becomes Raj’s property. Raj takes the defence that when he sold that car to Simran, he had no title over it. The court held that Raj would be liable
and will have to prove his want of title.
If Thanos is an employee of company XYZ but in court, he denies to be an employee of that company, then, later on he could not claim the salaries and
emoluments from that company.

A, an agent of C, mortgaged his property to B which he was in the possession of but was not the owner. B, the mortgagee, in good faith, believing the
representation to be true took the mortgage. Thereafter, he obtained a decree and the property was sold. The real owner of the property, C, claimed that
it was his property and that A had no power to mortgage them. The court would stop A from making such a claim under the doctrine of estoppel.

M, a tenant in the house of N, falsely representing to Q that he had transferable rights over the property and thereafter transferring property to N, later
on, cannot claim that he had no transferable interest in the property. He would be estopped from doing so under the doctrine of estoppel.
Principles of Estoppel
Conditions for application of Doctrine of Estoppel
The following conditions are to be satisfied in order to apply the doctrine of estoppel:
1. The representation must be made by one person to another person.
2. The representation made must be as to facts and not as to the law
3. The representation must be made as to an existing fact.
4. The representation must be made in a manner which makes the other person believe that it is true.
5. The person to whom the representation is being made must act upon that Belief.
6. The person to whom the representation would be made should suffer a loss by such representation.
Types of Estoppel :
Estoppel by a matter of Record or Quasi-record
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. 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, incidentally comes again into question in the subsequent
proceedings between the same party.

For example, if Nano has been held guilty in a murder case, then neither he, nor his representative, Mantro, nor his executor Berna, would be allowed
to raise a suit again in the same matter. Parties are stopped from doing so under this doctrine.
This doctrine has been dealt in:
1. Section 11 to 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and
2. Section 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In case if the judgement given by the court does not fall under the respective jurisdiction then the application of the doctrine of estoppel will
have no effect. Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that in case the party wants to avoid the application of the doctrine of
estoppel, he/she can plead that the court delivering the judgement has no jurisdiction over the matter or that it is fraudulently doing so.

Estoppel by Deed
It is the concept where two parties enter into an agreement by way of a deed as to certain facts. This implies that neither he nor his
representatives or any person claiming under him can deny the facts mentioned and agreed in the deed.

For example, Mickey Shroff decided to make his will in favor of his two sons, Lion Shroff and Wolf Shroff, and his daughter’s son Deer
Shroff. Lion Shroff induced some third person to buy Deer Shroff’s share of the property. This deed was attested by Wolf Shroff who was not
aware of the facts mentioned in the deed. Deer Shroff died without giving birth to a male child. Lion Shroff filed a suit to recover the property
from the third party. Here Lion Shroff would be estopped but not Wolf Shroff as Wolf was not aware of the facts of the deed.
Estoppel by Pais or Estoppel by Conduct
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, Chand 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’

Difference Between Issue Estoppel and Res Judicata Res judicata is the final decision made by the court. It prevents the parties
from relitigating the issues that were or could have been raised in the specific case. Whereas, the issue estoppel is a legal principle
which says that even if the court has made a decision the relitigating of that issue would be prohibited on a different course of action
involving either of the parties from the first case.
Exceptions to Estoppel
Following are the exceptions to the doctrine of estoppel
1. This doctrine does not apply when both parties have the entire knowledge of the things in their matter.
2. Estoppel cannot be applied against statutes and regulations. It should not come in conflict with the statutes and regulations.
3. It would not apply to cases where one party has exceeded his power while acting or taking a decision.
4. It cannot be applied against the sovereign acts or the government

Promissory Estoppel
The Doctrine of promissory estoppel binds a party by his promise made to the other party, having faith in which the other party has taken an action.
The party cannot make contracting or conflicting statements later on, neither he can go back on his words. In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v.
State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. the state of Uttar Pradesh first promised to exempt the new industrial units from paying sales tax for an initial
period of 3 years. Based on this the plaintiff took a huge amount of loan to set up a new industrial unit. Later on the government made a change in
its promise and said that only partial concession would be allowed to which the plaintiff agreed. But the government yet again changed the policy
and this time said that no concession would be given. The court said that the defendant made a representation to the plaintiff. Laying his trust in it,
plaintiff took a large sum of money as a loan. So, now the government would have to exempt the plaintiff from paying taxes for an initial period of
3 years as per the principle of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Doctrine of 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. . 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 party give up on the right, the doctrine of estoppel would anyway arise.
proceedings are binding as estoppel. 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.

Section 116 Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession

The section states that during the continuance of the tenancy, the tenant of the immovable property or any person claiming through such tenancy cannot
deny to the fact that at the beginning of the tenancy it was the landlord who had the title over the immovable property. Further, the Section also explains
that a person who came upon an immovable property by the license cannot deny the fact that the person from whom he got the license, that is, in whose
possession the immovable property, had the title at the time when he got his license.
Tenant- landlord relationship
A relationship between a tenant and a landlord can be created either by written contract or verbal contract. The beginning of the tenancy can be
marked by the taking of possession of the land, or by the payment of rent, or other circumstances.

If X leases his land to Y and Y takes the possession and starts paying the rent and later on X sales the land to Z, then Y can make his payment to Z.
Here, Y and Z have formed the tenant-landlord relationship.

Scope of section 116 It is concerned with those estoppels which occurs between:
1. Tenant and his landlord
2. Licensor and licensee
Title of the landlord cannot be denied 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 in no case claim that the landlord has no title over the property.
In Moti Lal v. Yar Md, the judge said that the tenant cannot say that the landlord has no more interest in the property when the landlord filed a
suit for default payment and ejectment. It is only after leaving the possession can the holding of title by the landlord be questioned as mentioned in
Suraj Bali Ram v. Dhani Ram

In Sri S.K. Sharma v. Mahesh Kumar Verma, where defendant upon attaining a higher post was allotted a premise by the railway company. In
the case, it was said that even when it was not known whether the land belonged to the railway company or not, the officer will have to evacuate
the premises after retirement.

Estoppel applied when tenancy is in existence

In Udai Pratap v. Krishna Pradhan, the continuance of tenancy was defined as a period during which the tenant enjoys the possession of the
property and is seeking benefits from it. Prof. Javaid Talib Prof. Md. Ashraf The Tenant cannot deny the title to the landlord, neither at the
beginning of the tenancy nor during its continuance. The Tenant would be estopped from denying the title of the landlord only when the tenancy is
continuing. Once the tenancy ceases to exist, the tenant will have the right to deny title to the landlord.
For example, A is the tenant of land which belongs to B . As soon as A takes possession of the property, the tenancy comes into existence and
continues until it comes to an end. During this B cannot be denied title to the property by A. But once the tenancy lapses, A will have the right to
question the interest of B in the property.

Title at the beginning

The tenant cannot deny the title to the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. However, tenants can exercise certain powers like:
1. 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.
2. He can prove that till the day before signing the lease, the landlord had no title over it.
3. 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.
Licensor- Licensee relationship
In licensor- licensee relationship the same rule operates like that in the landlord tenant relationship. When a licensee obtains the possession
through license cannot deny the title to the licensor unless the relationship ceases to exist.

A allowed B to use the washroom in his backyard. B fraudulently made the duplicate keys of those washrooms and refused to vacate. In court
A cannot in his suit for ejectment say that B holds no title over those washrooms as he was the one who gave him access to them

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. 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
Prof. Javaid Talib Prof. Md. Ashraf 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 (refuse to accept) of the mortgage.