INTRODUCTION–
DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL- Doctrine (Principle) + Estoppel (to stop) = Principle of preventing peoples from going back.
“Estoppel is when one is concluded and forbidden in law to speak against his act.” [1] so that other people need not suffer because of the misrepresentation of another person. Also “An estoppel is not a cause of action- it is a rule of evidence which precludes a person from denying the truth of some statement previously made by him.” [2]
In simple words, the term Estoppel can be interpreted as denying peoples to say one word at one time and another at another time because, these situations give rise to other confusion under the ambit of law due to which, the person who had changed his position based on those words had to suffer a lot.
For instance, A had made an offer to sell his house to B, B purchased that house from A but later A denied from giving the ownership of the house to B based on the fact that at that time the house doesn’t belong to him so, if we apply the principle of estoppels here then A is not allowed to do so and have to transfer the ownership of the house to B.
PROVISIONS USED–
According to Section 115 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Estoppel can be interpreted as-
Estoppel. —“When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.”[3]
In laymen’s words, the above provision tried to say that when one person intentionally misrepresents another person to believe certain thing as true and that other person by believing it to be true acts based on same then that person cannot be allowed to deny the thing which he stated as true.
REQUIREMENTS OF ESTOPPEL–
The following ingredients need to be there to put the matter under the criteria of Estoppel-
- A person misrepresents another person,
- Misrepresentation can be through declaration, omission, or intention,
- Representing the facts as true;
- Such misrepresentation caused someone to believe a thing as true,
- Someone has changed his position based on the misrepresentation;
- Such misrepresentation caused the injuries to another person.
Is it a Substantive law?–
“An estoppel through a branch of the law of evidence is also capable of being viewed as a substantive rule of law in so far as it helps to create or defeat rights which would not exist and be taken away but for that doctrine.”.[4] so as a conclusion it is substantive law as it helps to attain the rights of the people.
TYPES OF ESTOPPEL–
Under the ambit of estoppels there are five types of estoppels which can be interpreted as-
- Promissory Estoppel- It plays an important role as an exception under contract law as there is no need for consideration under it to fulfill the conditions of the promise. Here one person promises to another person that he will do something if a particular person changes his position and at the moment person change his position to get the benefit of promise, here changing the position is a key ingredient to claim for promissory estoppels, then the person promised is bound to fulfill the promise without claiming the fact that he is getting no consideration for the same.
For example, In one of the case, a landlord had promised the tenant to cut off the half of the rent because of the warlike situations in the country but later after war gets over he asked for the full rent which he had cut off during wartime so, by applying the doctrine of promissory estoppels court came to the judgment that landlord is not entitled to receive the full rent.[5]
- Estoppel by record- This principle denies to bring the same decided subject again in the court of law and bound the parties with the judgment of the court. It is also known as an estoppel by the record in English law is substantially covered, under our law, by the doctrine of res judicata.[6] So the basic reason for adopting this particular rule of res judicata is to give finality to litigation.[7]
- Estoppel by conduct– Here a person misrepresents another person with his acts and omission so that another person while believing in those facts changes his position but, as soon the position gets changed the person cannot go back from his misrepresentation and is liable for that.
- Estoppel by Deed– When persons enter into any agreement based on any deed carrying certain fact then neither parties can challenge those fats of the deed in front of the court, the doctrine of estoppel by deed is applicable only at the instance of a party to the deed and not by a third party.[8]
- Equitable Estoppel– It is a remedy which stops the person to enforce legal action against the act for which he has given permission, for example, suppose A had allowed B to take his car and drive at the full speed and due to that if his car suffers any damage then he will not ask for the damages, later when B took the car for a drive the car’s headlight suffers huge damages for which A asked the damages from B but according to Equitable estoppels he is not allowed to do so.
- There is one another kind of estoppels also – estoppel by representation- which is founded upon reason and it is founded upon decision also.” [9]
CONCLUSION-
This principle gets introduced to prevent peoples from going back to their original position after making the changes in the positions of another person based on some misrepresented facts, it provides a remedy under civil law to cub the injustice and make sure that peoples need not lose their rights. In short, it is a remedy that works in the favor of people who are at the extinct of losing their rights because of the misrepresentation of another person.
Sources:
[1] Ashpital v. Byron,
[2] Low v. Bouveria, (1831)
[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/565781/
[4] Depuru Veeraraghava Reddi v. Depuru Kamalamma, (AIR 1951 Madras 403)
[5] Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947]
[6] Sita and Others v. State of U.P and others opp. parties
[7] Messrs H.A Shah & co. v. commr. Of Income-tax and excess profits tax, Bombay city
[8] T.A Mahomed Usman v. State of Madras
[9] General Finance & Co. v. Liberator
This blog is written by Anjali Tripathi, Nirma University
Some of her blogs-
- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXECUTION, SUSPENSION, REMISSION, AND COMMUTATION OF SENTENCES
- PROCEDURE FOR MAINTENANCE OF WIFE and CHILD
- DYING DECLARATION
Visit our Instagram page @lawyergyan at this link.