Introduction

"Estoppel may be defined as disability whereby a party is precluded from alleging or proving
in legal proceedings, that a fact is otherwise than it has been made to appear by the matter
giving rise to that disability."1
Estopple is based on the maxim, allegans contraria non est audiendus which means, a person
allegeni contradictory facts should not be heard. The term "Estoppel," comes from an oldFrench word- "Estoupail" (or variation), which means "stopper plug", referring to placing a
brake on the imbalance of the situation. The rationale behind estoppel is to prevent injustice
owing to fraud or inconsistency.
In its simplest sense, doctrine of Estoppels, precludes a person from denying or to negate
anything to the contrary of that which has been constituted as truth, either by his own actions,
by his deeds or by his representations or by the acts of judicial or legislative officers.
Estoppel is often described as a rule of evidence as indeed it may be so described. But the
whole concept is more carefully viewed as a rule of substantive law.
To invoke the doctrine of estoppels, there are three conditions which must be satisfied;
1. Representation by a person to another
2. The other should have acted upon the said representation and
3. Such action should have been detrimental to the interests of the person to whom the
representation has been made.
However in the case, Gyarsi Bai vs. Dhansukh Lal,2 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court that even if the first two conditions are fulfilled, but the third is not, then there is no
scope to invoke the doctrine of estoppel.
Principle of Section 115:
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
Estoppel is based on the principle that it would be most inequitable and unjust that if one
person by a representation made, or by conduct amounting to a representation, had induced
another to act as he would not otherwise have done, the person who made the representation
1 HALSBURY (4th Ed, Vol. 16, para 1501, page1008).
2 Gyarsi Bai vs. Dhansukh Lal ,AIR 1965 SC 1055.

should not be allowed to deny or repudiate the effect of his former stat4emnet, to the loss and
injury of the person who acted on it.3
Sir Edward Coke had defined estoppel in these words: An estoppel exists where a mans
own act or acceptance stoppeth or closeth up his mouth to allege or plead the truth. In
simpler language, a person cannot be allowed to say one thing at one time and the contrary at
another: He cannot blow both hot and cold at the same time.
This section is founded upon the doctrine laid down in Pickard v. Sears (1837 6A. & E. 475),
namely, that where a person by his words or conduct, wilfully causes another to believe the
existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief, so as to alter his
own previous position, the former is concluded from averring against the latter, a different
state of things as existing at the same time. This doctrine precludes a person from denying
the truth of some statement previously made by himself. No cause of action arises upon
estoppel itself.
Scope of Section 115:
In order to hold that a case comes within the scope of this section, a Court must find:
1. That A believed a thing to be true.
2. That in consequence of that belief, he acted in a particular manner.
3. That that belief, and As so acting were brought about by some representation by S,
either by a declaration, act, or omission, which representation was made intentionally
to produce that result.
In Chhaganlal Mehta v. Haribhai Patel,4 the Supreme Court analysed the scope of S. 115 of
the Act, and laid down that the following eight conditions must be satisfied to bring a case
within the scope of estoppel, as defined in S. 115.
4. There must have been a representation by a person (or his authorised agent) to another
person. Such a representation may be in any form a declaration or an act or an
omission.
5. Such representation must have been of the existence of a fact, and not of future
promises or intention.
6. The representation must have been meant to have been relied upon.
7. There must have been belief on the part of the other party in its truth.

3 Sarat Chuder Dey vs. Gopal Chunder Laha, (1892) 19 IA 203.

4 Chhaganlal Mehta v. Haribhai Patel, (1982) 1 S.C.C. 223.

8. There must have been some action on the faith of that declaration, act or omission. In
other words, such declaration, act or omission must have actually caused the other
person to act on the faith of it, and to alter his position to his prejudice or detriment.
9. The misrepresentation or conduct or omission must have been the proximate cause of
leading the other party to act to his prejudice.
10. The person claiming the benefit of an estoppel must show that he was not aware of the
true state of things. There can be no estoppel if such a person was aware of the true
state of affairs or if he had means of such knowledge.
11. Only the person to whom the representation was made or for whom it was designed
(or his representative) can avail of the doctrine.
Classes of Estoppel under Section 116 And 117 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
1. Tenant (Section 116)
No tenant of immovable property (or person claiming through such tenant) can, during the
continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the land-lord of such tenant had, at the
beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property.
2. Licensee of a person in possession (Section 116)
No person who came upon immovable property by the licence of the person in possession
thereof can deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence
was given.
3. Acceptor of a bill of exchange (Section 117)
No acceptor of a bill of exchange can deny that the drawer had authority to draw such bill or
to endorse it; but he may deny that the bill was really drawn by the person by whom it
purports to have been drawn.
4. Bailee or licensee (Section 117):
No bailee or licensee can deny that his bailor or licensor had, at the time when the bailment
or licence commenced, authority to make such bailment or grant such licence. But, if a bailee
delivers the goods bailed to a person other than the bailor, he may prove that such person had
a right to them as against the bailor.
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.