Doctrine of Estoppel under Evidence Act

Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 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. The term Estoppel is derived from the maxium, “allegans contraria non est
audiendus”  which implies a person alleging contradictory facts should not be heard, and is the
species of presumptio juris et de jure, wherein the fact presumed is taken to be true against the
party stating the same.1

The principle of estoppel was effectively laid down in Pickard v Seers 2. In this case one A who
was the owner of certain machinery allowed it to be in the possession of his friend B. C obtained
a decree against B and when the machinery was being seized in execution of that decree A did
not raise any objection. Subsequently C sold this to that property. The court held A is stopped
from denying the fact that B is the owner of that machinery. The court held that when one person
willfully causes a belief in another that a certain thing is true and induces that other person to act
upon that other person to act upon that belief and to alter his position the former is precluded
from setting up a different state of things.

The following conditions are to be satisfied in order to apply the doctrine of estoppel: 3

a) The representation must be made by one person to another person.

b) The representation made must be as to facts and not as to the law.
c) The representation must be made as to an existing fact.
d) The representation must be made in a manner which makes the other person believe
that it is true.
e) The person to whom the representation is being made must act upon that belief.
f) The person to whom the representation would be made should suffer a loss by such
representation. 
1
Ratanlal & Dhrajlal, The Law of Evidence, 609-654,( 21st Edition, 2009), LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur
2
1832 A&E 469.
3
Batuk Lal, The Law of Evidence, (22 “Edition, 2018), Central Law Agency, Allahabad
Kinds of Estoppel:4

Estoppel by matter of record: It is mainly concerned with the effects of judgment and their
admissibility in evidence, this form of estoppels deals with section 11 to 14 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and Section 40-44 of the Indian Evidence Act. The basic principle is the judgment
debtor must, when it has once been completed, obey the same unless he can set it aside by
procedure constituted to do the same.5

Estoppel by deed: When a party has entered into an engagement by a deed claiming certain fact,
neither he nor his representatives can contest these facts later. This principle only applies
between parties and privies. No estoppels can rise from material, which are non- binding and
irrelevant to the matter. If a deed is tainted or fraud, no estoppels can arise from it. In the case
of Atmaram v. State 6where the petitioner claimed title over the land by a registered sale deed,
before drawing any conclusion, the plea raised by petitioner must be considered.

Estoppel by conduct: Estoppel in parties arises from an agreement, contract, act or conduct of
misrepresentation, negligence and omission which has induced in the change in position in
accordance with the acts or conduct of the other party.7

Equitable Estoppel: Estoppel is a product of equity, therefore the Court will have to go by
equities on both the sides to maintain a balance. A man may be stopped, not only from giving
particular evidence but also depending upon that particular argument or contention that the rule
of equity does not permit.8

4
Batuk Lal, The Law of Evidence(22nd Edition, 2018), Central Law Agency, Allahabad
5
 Ramrao v. Dattadayal, 1947 (Nag) 889.
6
 Atmaram v. State, A.I.R 1995 (MP) 225.
7
 Ratanlal & Dhrajlal, The Law of Evidence, 609-654,( 21st Edition, 2009), LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur
8
 Ganges Manufacturing Co. v. Sourujmull, 1880, 5 (Cal) 669,678.
Promissory Estoppel: The history of promissory estoppels can be traced back to England,
derived from the principle of equity. Once a party, by his words or conduct makes a legally
binding promise to another party, if the other party has acted upon these words or conduct, the
one who made the promise or gave assurance cannot revert back to his previous position. He
must concede to the existence of this legal relationship subject to the representation he
introduced. It differs from estoppels properly so called because the representation relied upon
need not be one of present fact. 9

Particularly in matters of admission, examination etc. in order to invoke the principle of estoppel
certain guidelines must be adhered to.

In Bal Krishna v. Rewa University 10the court has suggested the following guidelines to be kept
in view, for considering whether or not a student is entitled to invoke the princlple of estoppel:

1. Where a student has practicesd a fcraud against the University authorities or is guilty of
any mis-statement or suppression of facts in the application form he is not entitled to
invoke estoppel and the University has a right to cancel the admission or examinatioin.
2. Where a student is patently ineligible on the basis of information supplied by him no
estoppel can be invoked, For example, for taking admission in 3 years Law Course one
should be a graduate.
3. Suppose a person who has passed the Intermediate examination thinks that he is eligible
to take admission in 3 years Law course by mistake he is given admission. Because he is
patently ineligible he cannot invoke the doctrine of estoppel when his admission is
cancelled.
4. Where the question of eligibility depends on the interpretation of rules and regulations
having the force of law and where two interpretations can be assigned court may presume
that the interpretauons favourable to the student has been adopted.
5. Where there is a technical defect or minor deficiency in the filling up of the application
form or furnishing of the information by the student and where the University has

9
Air Corp Emp. Union v. G.B. Bhirade, 1969 71 (Bom) LR 707.
10
AIR 1978 MP 86
 discretion to condone such a thing, the court may presume such a condonation having
been made by the University.

Exceptions to the Doctrine of Estoppel 11

1. It does not apply to those matters where both parties have the knowledge of truthfulness.
2. It does not apply against statutes. It cannot contradict the provision of statues. It cannot
also remove the condition of statues.
3. It does not apply to regulations.
4. It does not apply to ultra virus orders and decisions.
5. It does not apply to questions of law.
6. It does not apply to sovereign acts of the government.

Conclusion

The principle of Doctrine of estoppel is very important as it protect people against fraud or
misrepresentation. We came through many instances where an innocent falls into the trap of false
representation made to them by other party. There are several instances where plantiff suffer
huge loss. Estopple eschew such type of situations and levy the person for his wrongful coduct .
'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. Estoppel was once
regarded as a rule or branch of the law of evidence, but the better opinion, and that which now
11
Batuk Lal, The Law of Evidence(22nd Edition, 2018), Central Law Agency, Allahabad
prevails, is that it is more properly a branch of the substantive law. 12Although 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.

12
Martin v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 83 Me. 104, 21 Atl. 740