| Introduction | jurisprudence |
| Section | section 115 indian evidence act |
| Illustration | |
| Relevant Case laws | Maddanappa vs Chandrama Madhuri Patel vs add. commissioner Sanatan Gauda vs berahampur university |
| Present Problem | question related |
| Conclusion | Decision as per our reasoning |
Estoppel is based on the principle of equity. When one person had induced
another person by his act, omission or declaration to believe something to be true
and the other person had taken some steps on believing upon the statement. It
would be most inequitable and unjust to allow the former to deny or repudiate the
effect of his former statement.
This Section says that when one person has by his (a) declaration (b) act, or (c)
omission,
i) Intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true,
and
ii) To act upon such belief.
Neither he nor his representative shall be allowed in any suit or proceedings
between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that
thing. The kinds of estoppel which have evolved through judicial process are
equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel, including promissory estoppel
against Government and its agencies, against universities and institutions, issue
estoppel etc.
Conditions:
To invoke the doctrine of estoppel, three conditions must be satisfied:-
i) Representation by a person to another,
ii) The other shall have acted upon the said representation, and
iii) Such action shall have been detrimental to the interests of the person to
whom the representation has been made.
The person who made misrepresentation must known only to him and not to other person, that other person should act upon it. If the other person known about the misrepresentation, then he should not be granted estoppel.
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.
Illustration:
A, intentionally and falsely lead B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby
induces B to buy and pay for it.
The land afterwards becomes the property of A and A seeks to set aside the sale on
the ground that at the time of sale, he had no title. He must not be allowed to prove his
want of title.
Relevant Case Laws:
R. S. Maddanappa vs Chandrama
facts:
R.S. Maddanappa and Puttananjamma were married and having two daughters.
Gowramma, the mother of Puttananjamma, having property which was disputed in this case.
Gowramma had no other child except Puttananjamma. So, Puttananjamma was absolute owner of property. After her death her two daughters became owner of property. Although possession of property was in the hands of their father (R.S. Maddanappa).
R.S. Maddanappa got another marriage. And he had kids too with his second wife.
Initially second daughter from first wife was not interested in property. She had written some
letters in favour of her father. Some notice was also issued against her, but she did not reply. But later, she claimed her share. Once she claimed her share, defendants demanded for application of doctrine of estoppel against her.
High Court has given judgment in her favour. Matter has reached to Supreme Court through
appeal.
issue:
Whether the first defendant was estopped by her conduct from claiming possession of her alleged half share of the properties?
judgement:
Supreme Court said that merely non-replying of suit and noncooperation with plaint are
not sufficient for applying estoppel against respondent (Defendant -1- Chandramma). It
does not mean that she impliedly admitted that she had no interest in the properties.
Father knew the true legal position. That is to say, the father knew that these properties
belonged to Puttananjamma, and that he had no authority to deal with these properties.
There is nothing on the record to show that by reason of the conduct of the first defendant Maddanappa altered his position to his disadvantage.
The object of estoppel is to prevent fraud and secure justice between the parties by
promotion of honesty and good faith.
Therefore, where one person makes a misrepresentation to the other about a fact he
would not be shut out by the rule of estoppel, if that other person knows the true state of
facts and must consequently not have been misled by the misrepresentation.
The person claiming benefit of the doctrine must show that he has acted to his detriment
on the faith of the representation made to him. In this case there was no detriment.
Reason was that both parties aware about truth.
Estoppel was not applied against Chandramma. The reason was that truth was known to both parties.
Consequently, the first defendant is not estopped from claiming possession, and liability for improvement costs cannot be imposed.
The SC upheld the decision given by the HC and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Madhuri Patil vs Add. commissioner
facts:
Suchita and Madhuri are daughters of Lakshman Panduranga Patil. The fact is related to admission of Suchita in MBBS Course and other Madhuri in BDS Course. Both claimed that “Hindu Koli” is “Mahadeo Koli” which falls under ‘Scheduled Caste’ category. In this case their admission was challenged on the base of false caste certificate, as their father caste belong to OBC category but they made certificate for ST category. After surfacing of these facts, university decided to cancel their admissions. In response appellant filed for the application of estoppel against university.
issue:
Whether Hindu Koli is “Mahadeo Koli” (Scheduled Tribe)?
Whether Suchita and Madhuri were “Mahadeo Koli” and entitled to take admission as S.T. in MBBS and BDS Course respectively?
judgement:
The courts have constitutional duty and responsibility, in exercise of the power of its
judicial review, to see that constitutional goals set down in the Preamble, the
Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of the Constitution, are achieved.
Kolis are fisherman and declared OBC community in the State of Maharashtra, and they
live mainly in the coastal region of Maharashtra. Mahadeo Kolis are hill tribes. Suchita
and Maduri were declared OBC rather than ST.
Suchita and Madhuri got caste certificate, for which they were not entitled. After taking
admission, they plead estoppel against State and University. Supreme Court observed,
“There is no estoppel as no promise of the social status is made by the State when a false
plea was put forth for the social status recognized and declared by the Presidential Order
under the Constitution as amended by the SC & ST (Amendment) Act, 1976, which is
later found to be false.
Therefore, the plea of promissory estoppel or equity has no application. When it is found
to be a case of fraud played by the concerned, no sympathy and equitable considerations
can come to his rescue. Nor the plea of estoppel is germane to the beneficial
constitutional concessions and opportunities given to the genuine tribes or castes.
“A party that seeks equity, must come with clean hands” is a Latin maxim. He who
comes to the court with false claim, cannot plead equity nor would the court be justified
to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. There is no estoppel as no promise of the
social status is made by the State when a false plea was put forth for the social status.
In this case, Suchita was in final year. So, she was allowed to complete her degree.
Madhuri was in mid-session. So, she was not allowed as ST candidate. It was said that if
she was otherwise eligible, then she should be allowed.
Supreme Court said, ―We uphold the cancellation and confiscation of Madhuri and of Suchita of social status as Mahadeo Koli ordered by Scrutiny Committee and affirmed by the order of Appellate Authority and that of the High Court in that behalf.
Sanatan Gauda vs Berahmpur University
facts:
After passing his M.A. examination securing more than 40 percent marks (364 out of 900), the appellant secured admission in 1983 to three-years law course in Ganjam Law College. Along with his form seeking admission he had submitted the mark-sheet with his M.A. degree certificate. The appellant completed his first-year & second year course and admitted in 3rd year, but his results were not declared on the ground that in view of the Regulations of the University, he was not qualified to be admitted to the law course. His admission being improper, he was not eligible to sit at the examinations aforesaid. Qualification of admission in LL.B. Course, there were two conditions:
I. He should have on the aggregate more than 39.5 per cent marks in Master’s Degree Examination.
II. In each paper he must secure 25 percent marks.
issue:
Whether the appellant eligible to be admitted to Law Course?
Whether the University estopped from declaring the admission of the appellant as void when initially the University itself admitted him and allowed him to take the semester exams?
judgement:
Supreme Court held that these two qualifications are applicable for under graduate
course. A person who had passed Master Exam for those it is not applicable.
Sanatan Gauda submitted his marks-sheet along with the application for admission. The
Law College had admitted him. He had pursued his studies for two years. He was also
admitted to the Final year of the course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of his
results of the first year and second year examinations that the University raised the
objection to his so-called ineligibility to be admitted to the Law course.
The University is, therefore, clearly estopped from refusing to declare the results of the
appellant’s examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course.
The appeal, along these lines, succeeds. The respondent-University is coordinated to declare the said results just as the consequence of the Final examination if the appellant has shown up for the equivalent. The appeal is permitted as needs be.
Present Problems:
A managed to get license of a pilot on the basis of a false certificate. It took 4 long years for the authorities to get it detected and verify true facts. They cancelled the license of the said pilot who takes the plea that has been trying without any problem and hence seek estoppel against authorities. Decide.
Answer: He can seek estoppel as it takes 4 years to recognise that certificate.
A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain lands belong to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it. The lands afterwards become the property of A and then he seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title, Can A succeed?
Answer: No, A will not succeed as Doctrine of Estoppel will apply here as per illustration of section 115.
Y, a student got marksheet from CBSE, showing that he has passed in Biology, Physics and Chemistry with good marks. Y as a matter of fact neither opted for Biology as subject nor appeared for Biology examination.However, he remained silent an sought admission in 1st year of MBBS at KGMC, Lucknow. When he had to appear in his first semester examinations, CBSE realised error and sent correct marksheet. KGMC, Lucknow cancelled his admission in MBBS. Y consults you for using estoppel against KGMC. State your opinion and give reasons.
answer: Estoppel will not apply here as CBSE realised his mistake in first sem. He was very well aware that his certificate has error, he has committed wrong here.
